|
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 October 10 2020 09:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 08:38 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 07:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 07:06 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 06:16 Starlightsun wrote:On October 10 2020 06:09 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 05:57 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:
Anybody detached enough from the partisan fight to give Bart and Durham praise for rejecting a report release prior to the election? Stand up and be counted, since I expect y’all would have particular venom if a spying report had been released in the next couple weeks from the DoJ. It's interesting that Durham's work product would be viewed as influencing the election. Is Joe Biden implicated? Because that would seem to be the only way it would impact the election. Sounds to me like the media succeeded in planting the belief that a Durham report would impact the election, despite there not being much substance to that belief. Wonder why the media doesn't want to see Durham's work product? I don't understand the hatred for the "media". Are Fox news, OAN, Breibart and so on also not part of the "media"? I mean it would be tiring to have to type out "the liberal biased fake-news media" every time. Yes but it would also show how silly it is. When you just write out the media it almost sounds more reasonable when really it is the opposite. I mean anytime you check out non partisan rankings of the "media" the ones that do the worst in terms of facts and bias are not the ones dood is complaining about. CNN does not score as well as say NPR but it does score better than Fox. And others like OAN are way out there. I get that people just think those are biased if they don't agree with their point of view. But at some point you want some objectivity on things. And it is not right wing bias from me I also want people to be more specific on what they mean by "socialism" and "propaganda" as well. There are a lot of fairly commonly used terms in this message board that people use completely differently. I'm referring to the liberal portion of the media which I think has more market share and is more powerful than the conservative portion. And they really don't like durhams investigation, despite durhams reputation for being impartial. Does Fox News have that much less of the Market share than CNN? Also, on Radio I don't believe anyone on the left side gets paid like Rush, wouldn't this suggest he has a pretty big market share and power? I always thought it was pretty equal, other than that there are more Liberal Americans than conservatives, meaning like the numbers are similar to the popular vote numbers. How do you define powerful in regards to the Media and why do the liberals have more? Fox as an individual outlet does very well, but there are numerous liberal outlets that, combined, have more power. And I would define power in terms of their ability to drive the national conversation. Take the collusion hysteria for example - lasted for 3 years (now it has dropped of the map, which is interesting if it's so possible that our president is compromised) at a fever pitch. TBH I think people think his handling of Covid is worse, and that is what dominates the conversation. I also think there is a lot of people hoping that when the investigation closes in NY we will have much better idea since only republicans who support Trump believe Barr is capable of a impartial investigation or even close to one into anything Trump related. Well the media has certainly primed the left to disbelieve everything associsted with barr and that is probably on purpose. But when you look at what barr has actually done it's not so bad. E.g. He issued conclusions for the mueller team after the mueller team declined to do so, and the left didn't like those conclusions so barr is biased. The problem for the trump hating dems & the media is that barr has handed off investigations to dedicated career public servants such as durham. Barr didn't just add a conclusion, his 'summery' prior to the report being released didn't match the actual report.
And since then he has repeatedly inserted himself in situations he shouldn't. Recently by trying to get the DoJ to defend Trump in a defamation lawsuit that stems from the 1990's.
The DoJ is not the Presidents personal team of lawyers, Barr has repeatedly crossed that line.
|
On October 10 2020 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 07:22 Shingi11 wrote:On October 10 2020 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 10 2020 07:07 Shingi11 wrote:On October 10 2020 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 10 2020 06:54 Shingi11 wrote:
So Graham is refusing to test for the next debate even though he has been in close contact with 2 other senators that have tested postive. You have be such a piece of human garbage that you would risk peoples life and health just so republicans can keep a quorum in the Senate. Both sides are the same though right. Republicans are remarkably more effective at wielding power to implement their agendas. So wait, just so I understand, the guy has high likelihood of being infected and could spread it to who knows how many people and could cause great harm to there health and that is ok in your books. Of course not? Sorry my bad. I guess I was reading it as you where ok that Graham was not testing. Nope. Terribly curious why Democrats would be in his presence granted the reasonable implications of his refusal to test though?
Well if you go by the tantrum that Graham threw on Twitter he will probley just back out if they made him. With how poorly he did at the first debate it would be a win for him. Sucks that they have too risk it just to have a debate. Harrison is going to need all the chances he can take if he wants to beat Graham. Harrison being 1% ahead probley still means he is behind in South Carolina with how ruby red it is.
|
On October 10 2020 10:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 09:57 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 08:38 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 07:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 07:06 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 06:16 Starlightsun wrote:On October 10 2020 06:09 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 05:57 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
It's interesting that Durham's work product would be viewed as influencing the election. Is Joe Biden implicated? Because that would seem to be the only way it would impact the election. Sounds to me like the media succeeded in planting the belief that a Durham report would impact the election, despite there not being much substance to that belief. Wonder why the media doesn't want to see Durham's work product? I don't understand the hatred for the "media". Are Fox news, OAN, Breibart and so on also not part of the "media"? I mean it would be tiring to have to type out "the liberal biased fake-news media" every time. Yes but it would also show how silly it is. When you just write out the media it almost sounds more reasonable when really it is the opposite. I mean anytime you check out non partisan rankings of the "media" the ones that do the worst in terms of facts and bias are not the ones dood is complaining about. CNN does not score as well as say NPR but it does score better than Fox. And others like OAN are way out there. I get that people just think those are biased if they don't agree with their point of view. But at some point you want some objectivity on things. And it is not right wing bias from me I also want people to be more specific on what they mean by "socialism" and "propaganda" as well. There are a lot of fairly commonly used terms in this message board that people use completely differently. I'm referring to the liberal portion of the media which I think has more market share and is more powerful than the conservative portion. And they really don't like durhams investigation, despite durhams reputation for being impartial. Does Fox News have that much less of the Market share than CNN? Also, on Radio I don't believe anyone on the left side gets paid like Rush, wouldn't this suggest he has a pretty big market share and power? I always thought it was pretty equal, other than that there are more Liberal Americans than conservatives, meaning like the numbers are similar to the popular vote numbers. How do you define powerful in regards to the Media and why do the liberals have more? Fox as an individual outlet does very well, but there are numerous liberal outlets that, combined, have more power. And I would define power in terms of their ability to drive the national conversation. Take the collusion hysteria for example - lasted for 3 years (now it has dropped of the map, which is interesting if it's so possible that our president is compromised) at a fever pitch. TBH I think people think his handling of Covid is worse, and that is what dominates the conversation. I also think there is a lot of people hoping that when the investigation closes in NY we will have much better idea since only republicans who support Trump believe Barr is capable of a impartial investigation or even close to one into anything Trump related. Well the media has certainly primed the left to disbelieve everything associsted with barr and that is probably on purpose. But when you look at what barr has actually done it's not so bad. E.g. He issued conclusions for the mueller team after the mueller team declined to do so, and the left didn't like those conclusions so barr is biased. The problem for the trump hating dems & the media is that barr has handed off investigations to dedicated career public servants such as durham. Barr didn't just add a conclusion, his 'summery' prior to the report being released didn't match the actual report. And since then he has repeatedly inserted himself in situations he shouldn't. Recently by trying to get the DoJ to defend Trump in a defamation lawsuit that stems from the 1990's. The DoJ is not the Presidents personal team of lawyers, Barr has repeatedly crossed that line.
The law that provides for the special counsel calls for the special counsel to come to a conclusion. The special counsel did not do so, therefore barr and Rosenstein (and probably others) needed to. The media has misinformed you into believing they did something other than come to a conclusion. But it is only that misinformation that you are relying on.
|
On October 10 2020 09:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 08:38 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 07:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 07:06 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 06:16 Starlightsun wrote:On October 10 2020 06:09 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 05:57 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:
Anybody detached enough from the partisan fight to give Bart and Durham praise for rejecting a report release prior to the election? Stand up and be counted, since I expect y’all would have particular venom if a spying report had been released in the next couple weeks from the DoJ. It's interesting that Durham's work product would be viewed as influencing the election. Is Joe Biden implicated? Because that would seem to be the only way it would impact the election. Sounds to me like the media succeeded in planting the belief that a Durham report would impact the election, despite there not being much substance to that belief. Wonder why the media doesn't want to see Durham's work product? I don't understand the hatred for the "media". Are Fox news, OAN, Breibart and so on also not part of the "media"? I mean it would be tiring to have to type out "the liberal biased fake-news media" every time. Yes but it would also show how silly it is. When you just write out the media it almost sounds more reasonable when really it is the opposite. I mean anytime you check out non partisan rankings of the "media" the ones that do the worst in terms of facts and bias are not the ones dood is complaining about. CNN does not score as well as say NPR but it does score better than Fox. And others like OAN are way out there. I get that people just think those are biased if they don't agree with their point of view. But at some point you want some objectivity on things. And it is not right wing bias from me I also want people to be more specific on what they mean by "socialism" and "propaganda" as well. There are a lot of fairly commonly used terms in this message board that people use completely differently. I'm referring to the liberal portion of the media which I think has more market share and is more powerful than the conservative portion. And they really don't like durhams investigation, despite durhams reputation for being impartial. Does Fox News have that much less of the Market share than CNN? Also, on Radio I don't believe anyone on the left side gets paid like Rush, wouldn't this suggest he has a pretty big market share and power? I always thought it was pretty equal, other than that there are more Liberal Americans than conservatives, meaning like the numbers are similar to the popular vote numbers. How do you define powerful in regards to the Media and why do the liberals have more? Fox as an individual outlet does very well, but there are numerous liberal outlets that, combined, have more power. And I would define power in terms of their ability to drive the national conversation. Take the collusion hysteria for example - lasted for 3 years (now it has dropped of the map, which is interesting if it's so possible that our president is compromised) at a fever pitch. TBH I think people think his handling of Covid is worse, and that is what dominates the conversation. I also think there is a lot of people hoping that when the investigation closes in NY we will have much better idea since only republicans who support Trump believe Barr is capable of a impartial investigation or even close to one into anything Trump related. Well the media has certainly primed the left to disbelieve everything associsted with barr and that is probably on purpose. But when you look at what barr has actually done it's not so bad. E.g. He issued conclusions for the mueller team after the mueller team declined to do so, and the left didn't like those conclusions so barr is biased. The problem for the trump hating dems & the media is that barr has handed off investigations to dedicated career public servants such as durham.
Didn't Barr outright say that he considered it his job to protect the President, and indicated in a personally written letter that if put into the post he would work to do so?
You know, thereby promising to do something an Attorney General absolutely under no circumstances should ever promise to do?
Barr primed people to distrust him by his own deeds. Not liberals, people, you just don't care because he's promising to protect your guy. If the President had been a Democrat Fox News would be screeching for his head on a pike and you know it.
|
On October 10 2020 10:32 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 09:57 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 08:38 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 07:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 07:06 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 06:16 Starlightsun wrote:On October 10 2020 06:09 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 05:57 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
It's interesting that Durham's work product would be viewed as influencing the election. Is Joe Biden implicated? Because that would seem to be the only way it would impact the election. Sounds to me like the media succeeded in planting the belief that a Durham report would impact the election, despite there not being much substance to that belief. Wonder why the media doesn't want to see Durham's work product? I don't understand the hatred for the "media". Are Fox news, OAN, Breibart and so on also not part of the "media"? I mean it would be tiring to have to type out "the liberal biased fake-news media" every time. Yes but it would also show how silly it is. When you just write out the media it almost sounds more reasonable when really it is the opposite. I mean anytime you check out non partisan rankings of the "media" the ones that do the worst in terms of facts and bias are not the ones dood is complaining about. CNN does not score as well as say NPR but it does score better than Fox. And others like OAN are way out there. I get that people just think those are biased if they don't agree with their point of view. But at some point you want some objectivity on things. And it is not right wing bias from me I also want people to be more specific on what they mean by "socialism" and "propaganda" as well. There are a lot of fairly commonly used terms in this message board that people use completely differently. I'm referring to the liberal portion of the media which I think has more market share and is more powerful than the conservative portion. And they really don't like durhams investigation, despite durhams reputation for being impartial. Does Fox News have that much less of the Market share than CNN? Also, on Radio I don't believe anyone on the left side gets paid like Rush, wouldn't this suggest he has a pretty big market share and power? I always thought it was pretty equal, other than that there are more Liberal Americans than conservatives, meaning like the numbers are similar to the popular vote numbers. How do you define powerful in regards to the Media and why do the liberals have more? Fox as an individual outlet does very well, but there are numerous liberal outlets that, combined, have more power. And I would define power in terms of their ability to drive the national conversation. Take the collusion hysteria for example - lasted for 3 years (now it has dropped of the map, which is interesting if it's so possible that our president is compromised) at a fever pitch. TBH I think people think his handling of Covid is worse, and that is what dominates the conversation. I also think there is a lot of people hoping that when the investigation closes in NY we will have much better idea since only republicans who support Trump believe Barr is capable of a impartial investigation or even close to one into anything Trump related. Well the media has certainly primed the left to disbelieve everything associsted with barr and that is probably on purpose. But when you look at what barr has actually done it's not so bad. E.g. He issued conclusions for the mueller team after the mueller team declined to do so, and the left didn't like those conclusions so barr is biased. The problem for the trump hating dems & the media is that barr has handed off investigations to dedicated career public servants such as durham. Didn't Barr outright say that he considered it his job to protect the President, and indicated in a personally written letter that if put into the post he would work to do so? You know, thereby promising to do something an Attorney General absolutely under no circumstances should ever promise to do? Barr primed people to distrust him by his own deeds. Not liberals, people, you just don't care because he's promising to protect your guy. If the President had been a Democrat Fox News would be screeching for his head on a pike and you know it.
I don't think he said that. He did say basically that the collusion theory was unfounded, which was true.
|
|
|
Burned Toast
Canada2040 Posts
It baffles me how the tech illiterate in power are always trying to join the parade with no clue of what they're doing...
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cAhBWMt.jpg)
|
On October 10 2020 10:28 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 10 2020 07:22 Shingi11 wrote:On October 10 2020 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 10 2020 07:07 Shingi11 wrote:On October 10 2020 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 10 2020 06:54 Shingi11 wrote:
So Graham is refusing to test for the next debate even though he has been in close contact with 2 other senators that have tested postive. You have be such a piece of human garbage that you would risk peoples life and health just so republicans can keep a quorum in the Senate. Both sides are the same though right. Republicans are remarkably more effective at wielding power to implement their agendas. So wait, just so I understand, the guy has high likelihood of being infected and could spread it to who knows how many people and could cause great harm to there health and that is ok in your books. Of course not? Sorry my bad. I guess I was reading it as you where ok that Graham was not testing. Nope. Terribly curious why Democrats would be in his presence granted the reasonable implications of his refusal to test though? Well if you go by the tantrum that Graham threw on Twitter he will probley just back out if they made him. With how poorly he did at the first debate it would be a win for him. Sucks that they have too risk it just to have a debate. Harrison is going to need all the chances he can take if he wants to beat Graham. Harrison being 1% ahead probley still means he is behind in South Carolina with how ruby red it is.
It seems they changed it from being in-person after Harrison (to his credit) refused to do it in-person without Graham getting tested. Graham seems to have agreed to the modified conditions and will participate.
|
On October 10 2020 10:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 10:30 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 10:08 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2020 09:57 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 08:38 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 07:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 07:06 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 06:16 Starlightsun wrote:
[quote]
I mean it would be tiring to have to type out "the liberal biased fake-news media" every time. Yes but it would also show how silly it is. When you just write out the media it almost sounds more reasonable when really it is the opposite. I mean anytime you check out non partisan rankings of the "media" the ones that do the worst in terms of facts and bias are not the ones dood is complaining about. CNN does not score as well as say NPR but it does score better than Fox. And others like OAN are way out there. I get that people just think those are biased if they don't agree with their point of view. But at some point you want some objectivity on things. And it is not right wing bias from me I also want people to be more specific on what they mean by "socialism" and "propaganda" as well. There are a lot of fairly commonly used terms in this message board that people use completely differently. I'm referring to the liberal portion of the media which I think has more market share and is more powerful than the conservative portion. And they really don't like durhams investigation, despite durhams reputation for being impartial. Does Fox News have that much less of the Market share than CNN? Also, on Radio I don't believe anyone on the left side gets paid like Rush, wouldn't this suggest he has a pretty big market share and power? I always thought it was pretty equal, other than that there are more Liberal Americans than conservatives, meaning like the numbers are similar to the popular vote numbers. How do you define powerful in regards to the Media and why do the liberals have more? Fox as an individual outlet does very well, but there are numerous liberal outlets that, combined, have more power. And I would define power in terms of their ability to drive the national conversation. Take the collusion hysteria for example - lasted for 3 years (now it has dropped of the map, which is interesting if it's so possible that our president is compromised) at a fever pitch. TBH I think people think his handling of Covid is worse, and that is what dominates the conversation. I also think there is a lot of people hoping that when the investigation closes in NY we will have much better idea since only republicans who support Trump believe Barr is capable of a impartial investigation or even close to one into anything Trump related. Well the media has certainly primed the left to disbelieve everything associsted with barr and that is probably on purpose. But when you look at what barr has actually done it's not so bad. E.g. He issued conclusions for the mueller team after the mueller team declined to do so, and the left didn't like those conclusions so barr is biased. The problem for the trump hating dems & the media is that barr has handed off investigations to dedicated career public servants such as durham. Barr didn't just add a conclusion, his 'summery' prior to the report being released didn't match the actual report. And since then he has repeatedly inserted himself in situations he shouldn't. Recently by trying to get the DoJ to defend Trump in a defamation lawsuit that stems from the 1990's. The DoJ is not the Presidents personal team of lawyers, Barr has repeatedly crossed that line. The law that provides for the special counsel calls for the special counsel to come to a conclusion. The special counsel did not do so, therefore barr and Rosenstein (and probably others) needed to. The media has misinformed you into believing they did something other than come to a conclusion. But it is only that misinformation that you are relying on. Did you read the report and Barrs conclusion? Did you think they matched?
Yes because there was no collusion and no obstruction. The report was written in the form of pretzel logic, because they didn't have a straightforward case to make so they apparently felt compelled to use overwrought reasoning in an attempt to make the report damning. But really, they didn't have collusion or obstruction. That's the real reason they didn't come to a conclusion - they could pretend to be simply laying out the evidence in the report, when in fact their assignment was to prosecute or not prosecute. They were anti-trump partisans (just look at their Twitter feeds now for proof of that).
|
On October 10 2020 11:15 Burned Toast wrote:It baffles me how the tech illiterate in power are always trying to join the parade with no clue of what they're doing...
This is beyond embarrassing.
|
On October 10 2020 10:30 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 10:08 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2020 09:57 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 08:38 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 07:28 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 07:06 Doodsmack wrote:On October 10 2020 06:44 JimmiC wrote:On October 10 2020 06:16 Starlightsun wrote:On October 10 2020 06:09 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand the hatred for the "media". Are Fox news, OAN, Breibart and so on also not part of the "media"? I mean it would be tiring to have to type out "the liberal biased fake-news media" every time. Yes but it would also show how silly it is. When you just write out the media it almost sounds more reasonable when really it is the opposite. I mean anytime you check out non partisan rankings of the "media" the ones that do the worst in terms of facts and bias are not the ones dood is complaining about. CNN does not score as well as say NPR but it does score better than Fox. And others like OAN are way out there. I get that people just think those are biased if they don't agree with their point of view. But at some point you want some objectivity on things. And it is not right wing bias from me I also want people to be more specific on what they mean by "socialism" and "propaganda" as well. There are a lot of fairly commonly used terms in this message board that people use completely differently. I'm referring to the liberal portion of the media which I think has more market share and is more powerful than the conservative portion. And they really don't like durhams investigation, despite durhams reputation for being impartial. Does Fox News have that much less of the Market share than CNN? Also, on Radio I don't believe anyone on the left side gets paid like Rush, wouldn't this suggest he has a pretty big market share and power? I always thought it was pretty equal, other than that there are more Liberal Americans than conservatives, meaning like the numbers are similar to the popular vote numbers. How do you define powerful in regards to the Media and why do the liberals have more? Fox as an individual outlet does very well, but there are numerous liberal outlets that, combined, have more power. And I would define power in terms of their ability to drive the national conversation. Take the collusion hysteria for example - lasted for 3 years (now it has dropped of the map, which is interesting if it's so possible that our president is compromised) at a fever pitch. TBH I think people think his handling of Covid is worse, and that is what dominates the conversation. I also think there is a lot of people hoping that when the investigation closes in NY we will have much better idea since only republicans who support Trump believe Barr is capable of a impartial investigation or even close to one into anything Trump related. Well the media has certainly primed the left to disbelieve everything associsted with barr and that is probably on purpose. But when you look at what barr has actually done it's not so bad. E.g. He issued conclusions for the mueller team after the mueller team declined to do so, and the left didn't like those conclusions so barr is biased. The problem for the trump hating dems & the media is that barr has handed off investigations to dedicated career public servants such as durham. Barr didn't just add a conclusion, his 'summery' prior to the report being released didn't match the actual report. And since then he has repeatedly inserted himself in situations he shouldn't. Recently by trying to get the DoJ to defend Trump in a defamation lawsuit that stems from the 1990's. The DoJ is not the Presidents personal team of lawyers, Barr has repeatedly crossed that line. The law that provides for the special counsel calls for the special counsel to come to a conclusion. The special counsel did not do so, therefore barr and Rosenstein (and probably others) needed to. The media has misinformed you into believing they did something other than come to a conclusion. But it is only that misinformation that you are relying on. I've read the report. No, Barr's version of his report summery does not match the actual contents of the report.
Have you actually read it?
|
The Pentagon has funneled $7.4 billion in surplus military gear to police forces that don't want or need it
Since 1990, the Defense Department has funneled more than $7.4 billion in excess military gear to nearly 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies across the United States. But according to a new audit released by the Pentagon's top watchdog, a significant amount of that equipment was likely unwanted or unneeded by police forces across the country...
In the case of five law enforcement agencies out of the 15 reviewed by the DoD IG, equipment was requested through the program not for use in law enforcement activities, but for sale to another law enforcement agency. The report provides an example of the Lawrenceburg Police Department in Tennessee, which sold off more than $43,000 in surplus military gear "to supplement its law enforcement budget," per the report.
In other words, some law enforcement agencies picked up expensive DoD gear just to sell it for a small profit to other police departments...
The DoD IG report underscores the lack of oversight regarding the Pentagon's 1033 program that's plagued the military-to-police pipeline for years. Indeed, a 2017 sting by the Government Accountability Office found that local law enforcement agencies could easily obtain millions in controlled items deemed too sensitive for public use with little to no oversight regarding their allocation and use...
As of May 2020, the Pentagon has funneled 391 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, 2,885 Humvees, 1,105 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and more than 75,000 firearms to federal and state police forces across the country.
Can some conservative please explain to me why whenever the phrase "wasteful government spending" comes up, nobody EVER wants to talk about how inflated and wasteful the DoD budget is so that we have shit like this happening for the last 30 years?
391 fixed wing aircraft. Why would ANY law enforcement agency ever need fixed wing aircraft? And planes aren't exactly a one time purchase either they need to be maintained and housed and that costs the county or city they're in even more money every single year.
This has always bothered me about "fiscal conservatives." They're more than willing to write a blank check to DoD and law enforcement who waste a TON of it on crap like this but will grill every penny spent on any other program. It's always bothered me and no Conservative I've ever talked to ever wants to actually talk about it, they just start rambling whataboutisms at me to deflect onto another topic.
|
On October 10 2020 19:55 Vindicare605 wrote:The Pentagon has funneled $7.4 billion in surplus military gear to police forces that don't want or need itShow nested quote +Since 1990, the Defense Department has funneled more than $7.4 billion in excess military gear to nearly 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies across the United States. But according to a new audit released by the Pentagon's top watchdog, a significant amount of that equipment was likely unwanted or unneeded by police forces across the country...
In the case of five law enforcement agencies out of the 15 reviewed by the DoD IG, equipment was requested through the program not for use in law enforcement activities, but for sale to another law enforcement agency. The report provides an example of the Lawrenceburg Police Department in Tennessee, which sold off more than $43,000 in surplus military gear "to supplement its law enforcement budget," per the report.
In other words, some law enforcement agencies picked up expensive DoD gear just to sell it for a small profit to other police departments...
The DoD IG report underscores the lack of oversight regarding the Pentagon's 1033 program that's plagued the military-to-police pipeline for years. Indeed, a 2017 sting by the Government Accountability Office found that local law enforcement agencies could easily obtain millions in controlled items deemed too sensitive for public use with little to no oversight regarding their allocation and use...
As of May 2020, the Pentagon has funneled 391 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, 2,885 Humvees, 1,105 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and more than 75,000 firearms to federal and state police forces across the country. Can some conservative please explain to me why whenever the phrase "wasteful government spending" comes up, nobody EVER wants to talk about how inflated and wasteful the DoD budget is so that we have shit like this happening for the last 30 years? 391 fixed wing aircraft. Why would ANY law enforcement agency ever need fixed wing aircraft? And planes aren't exactly a one time purchase either they need to be maintained and housed and that costs the county or city they're in even more money every single year. This has always bothered me about "fiscal conservatives." They're more than willing to write a blank check to DoD and law enforcement who waste a TON of it on crap like this but will grill every penny spent on any other program. It's always bothered me and no Conservative I've ever talked to ever wants to actually talk about it, they just start rambling whataboutisms at me to deflect onto another topic. A small important thing. The Pentagon has often said it doesn't want more shit. Congress keeps buying shit for them anyway, often from representatives that live in states which house the factory's building the shit the Pentagon doesn't want.
Now granted the DoD can no doubt save a lot of money if they wanted to but they are not always the ones asking for toys with no use.
|
On October 10 2020 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 19:55 Vindicare605 wrote:The Pentagon has funneled $7.4 billion in surplus military gear to police forces that don't want or need itSince 1990, the Defense Department has funneled more than $7.4 billion in excess military gear to nearly 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies across the United States. But according to a new audit released by the Pentagon's top watchdog, a significant amount of that equipment was likely unwanted or unneeded by police forces across the country...
In the case of five law enforcement agencies out of the 15 reviewed by the DoD IG, equipment was requested through the program not for use in law enforcement activities, but for sale to another law enforcement agency. The report provides an example of the Lawrenceburg Police Department in Tennessee, which sold off more than $43,000 in surplus military gear "to supplement its law enforcement budget," per the report.
In other words, some law enforcement agencies picked up expensive DoD gear just to sell it for a small profit to other police departments...
The DoD IG report underscores the lack of oversight regarding the Pentagon's 1033 program that's plagued the military-to-police pipeline for years. Indeed, a 2017 sting by the Government Accountability Office found that local law enforcement agencies could easily obtain millions in controlled items deemed too sensitive for public use with little to no oversight regarding their allocation and use...
As of May 2020, the Pentagon has funneled 391 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, 2,885 Humvees, 1,105 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and more than 75,000 firearms to federal and state police forces across the country. Can some conservative please explain to me why whenever the phrase "wasteful government spending" comes up, nobody EVER wants to talk about how inflated and wasteful the DoD budget is so that we have shit like this happening for the last 30 years? 391 fixed wing aircraft. Why would ANY law enforcement agency ever need fixed wing aircraft? And planes aren't exactly a one time purchase either they need to be maintained and housed and that costs the county or city they're in even more money every single year. This has always bothered me about "fiscal conservatives." They're more than willing to write a blank check to DoD and law enforcement who waste a TON of it on crap like this but will grill every penny spent on any other program. It's always bothered me and no Conservative I've ever talked to ever wants to actually talk about it, they just start rambling whataboutisms at me to deflect onto another topic. A small important thing. The Pentagon has often said it doesn't want more shit. Congress keeps buying shit for them anyway, often from representatives that live in states which house the factory's building the shit the Pentagon doesn't want. Now granted the DoD can no doubt save a lot of money if they wanted to but they are not always the ones asking for toys with no use.
Yea that's another point too. But every year the DoD budget keeps going up, and the Republicans even earmark additional weapons spending in the COVID relief bills! That's absolutely nuts.
It begs the question. Why IS there such a blind spot for conservatives when it comes to defense spending and weapons manufacturing? I never hear ANY voices of protest from them about it.
|
|
|
On October 10 2020 20:05 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2020 19:55 Vindicare605 wrote:The Pentagon has funneled $7.4 billion in surplus military gear to police forces that don't want or need itSince 1990, the Defense Department has funneled more than $7.4 billion in excess military gear to nearly 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies across the United States. But according to a new audit released by the Pentagon's top watchdog, a significant amount of that equipment was likely unwanted or unneeded by police forces across the country...
In the case of five law enforcement agencies out of the 15 reviewed by the DoD IG, equipment was requested through the program not for use in law enforcement activities, but for sale to another law enforcement agency. The report provides an example of the Lawrenceburg Police Department in Tennessee, which sold off more than $43,000 in surplus military gear "to supplement its law enforcement budget," per the report.
In other words, some law enforcement agencies picked up expensive DoD gear just to sell it for a small profit to other police departments...
The DoD IG report underscores the lack of oversight regarding the Pentagon's 1033 program that's plagued the military-to-police pipeline for years. Indeed, a 2017 sting by the Government Accountability Office found that local law enforcement agencies could easily obtain millions in controlled items deemed too sensitive for public use with little to no oversight regarding their allocation and use...
As of May 2020, the Pentagon has funneled 391 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, 2,885 Humvees, 1,105 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and more than 75,000 firearms to federal and state police forces across the country. Can some conservative please explain to me why whenever the phrase "wasteful government spending" comes up, nobody EVER wants to talk about how inflated and wasteful the DoD budget is so that we have shit like this happening for the last 30 years? 391 fixed wing aircraft. Why would ANY law enforcement agency ever need fixed wing aircraft? And planes aren't exactly a one time purchase either they need to be maintained and housed and that costs the county or city they're in even more money every single year. This has always bothered me about "fiscal conservatives." They're more than willing to write a blank check to DoD and law enforcement who waste a TON of it on crap like this but will grill every penny spent on any other program. It's always bothered me and no Conservative I've ever talked to ever wants to actually talk about it, they just start rambling whataboutisms at me to deflect onto another topic. A small important thing. The Pentagon has often said it doesn't want more shit. Congress keeps buying shit for them anyway, often from representatives that live in states which house the factory's building the shit the Pentagon doesn't want. Now granted the DoD can no doubt save a lot of money if they wanted to but they are not always the ones asking for toys with no use. Yea that's another point too. But every year the DoD budget keeps going up, and the Republicans even earmark additional weapons spending in the COVID relief bills! That's absolutely nuts. It begs the question. Why IS there such a blind spot for conservatives when it comes to defense spending and weapons manufacturing? I never hear ANY voices of protest from them about it. Because they pretend to be fiscally conservative without actually being it.
How many of them complained this administration about the deficit? How many of those who didn't complain where complaining during Obama's term?
I bet you a whole load of them go back to complaining about the deficit in January.
|
On October 10 2020 20:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2020 20:05 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 10 2020 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2020 19:55 Vindicare605 wrote:The Pentagon has funneled $7.4 billion in surplus military gear to police forces that don't want or need itSince 1990, the Defense Department has funneled more than $7.4 billion in excess military gear to nearly 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies across the United States. But according to a new audit released by the Pentagon's top watchdog, a significant amount of that equipment was likely unwanted or unneeded by police forces across the country...
In the case of five law enforcement agencies out of the 15 reviewed by the DoD IG, equipment was requested through the program not for use in law enforcement activities, but for sale to another law enforcement agency. The report provides an example of the Lawrenceburg Police Department in Tennessee, which sold off more than $43,000 in surplus military gear "to supplement its law enforcement budget," per the report.
In other words, some law enforcement agencies picked up expensive DoD gear just to sell it for a small profit to other police departments...
The DoD IG report underscores the lack of oversight regarding the Pentagon's 1033 program that's plagued the military-to-police pipeline for years. Indeed, a 2017 sting by the Government Accountability Office found that local law enforcement agencies could easily obtain millions in controlled items deemed too sensitive for public use with little to no oversight regarding their allocation and use...
As of May 2020, the Pentagon has funneled 391 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, 2,885 Humvees, 1,105 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and more than 75,000 firearms to federal and state police forces across the country. Can some conservative please explain to me why whenever the phrase "wasteful government spending" comes up, nobody EVER wants to talk about how inflated and wasteful the DoD budget is so that we have shit like this happening for the last 30 years? 391 fixed wing aircraft. Why would ANY law enforcement agency ever need fixed wing aircraft? And planes aren't exactly a one time purchase either they need to be maintained and housed and that costs the county or city they're in even more money every single year. This has always bothered me about "fiscal conservatives." They're more than willing to write a blank check to DoD and law enforcement who waste a TON of it on crap like this but will grill every penny spent on any other program. It's always bothered me and no Conservative I've ever talked to ever wants to actually talk about it, they just start rambling whataboutisms at me to deflect onto another topic. A small important thing. The Pentagon has often said it doesn't want more shit. Congress keeps buying shit for them anyway, often from representatives that live in states which house the factory's building the shit the Pentagon doesn't want. Now granted the DoD can no doubt save a lot of money if they wanted to but they are not always the ones asking for toys with no use. Yea that's another point too. But every year the DoD budget keeps going up, and the Republicans even earmark additional weapons spending in the COVID relief bills! That's absolutely nuts. It begs the question. Why IS there such a blind spot for conservatives when it comes to defense spending and weapons manufacturing? I never hear ANY voices of protest from them about it. Because they pretend to be fiscally conservative without actually being it. How many of them complained this administration about the deficit? How many of those who didn't complain where complaining during Obama's term? I bet you a whole load of them go back to complaining about the deficit in January.
I mean, it makes sense, too. If you assume that the country has some kind of a budget (I know it isn't exactly easy, but the basic idea still fits) and the parties will swap power eventually, then every cent the other guy doesn't spend on stuff he wants is a cent that you can spend once you are in power again on stuff you want, or to bribe your constituents and/or donors/cronies.
It is less about caring about spending too much money, and more about just making sure that you are the guy who gets to spend the money.
|
I think Trump sees stimulus payments as an absolute minimum for election. Trump will probably do anything he possibly can to get it done. I think he would be able to executive order or some other bullshit with Mnuchin right? I also think they are just trying to use McConnell as "bad cop". Turtle knows if Trump goes down, he's losing the senate no matter what. This silly illusion that he doesn't care if stimulus happens or not is total nonsense. His power relies on it.
|
The stock market is doing fine, so at this point stimulus payments are hardly necessary. If they really wanted to pass a stimulus bill, they would've done it back in July instead of turning it into an October talking point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
