|
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 09 2018 19:55 Silvanel wrote:
If You are not identyfing Yourself with Israel then You shouldnt be ofended since "Your people" part of equation isnt true. The premise is false hence the conclusion is not applicable. I dont think the assumption itself that "All jews identify with Isreal" is antisemitic its just ignorant.
Then one should not say "your people" in the first place since Israeli ≠ Jews...
|
On June 09 2018 19:55 Silvanel wrote:
If You are not identyfing Yourself with Israel then You shouldnt be ofended since "Your people" part of equation isnt true. The premise is false hence the conclusion is not applicable. I dont think the assumption itself that "All jews identify with Isreal" is antisemitic its just ignorant.
That's not really how it works. At all. Wether Kyadytim identifies himself as a jew, christian or vegan is irrelevant. 'Your people' quite clearly meant 'jews'. Antisemitism isn't on the recipient.
|
On June 09 2018 19:55 Silvanel wrote:
If You are not identyfing Yourself with Israel then You shouldnt be ofended since "Your people" part of equation isnt true. The premise is false hence the conclusion is not applicable. I dont think the assumption itself that "All jews identify with Isreal" is antisemitic its just ignorant.
The 'your people' part is an assumption that all Jews are pro-Israel which IS anti-Semitic, because it conflates a complex ethnic, religious diasporic identity with responsibility for the actions of a state
|
Then we will have to disagree on that beacuse for me its clearly not. The same way that assumption that all Turkish people in Germany support Erdogan isnt anti Trukish and same way that assuming all Russian people living in Ukraine support Putin. I dont call people expressing such opinion anti-Turkish or or anti-Russian but ignorant.
|
Does anyone remember the core thing they were arguing about at this point?
|
On June 09 2018 21:09 iamthedave wrote:
Does anyone remember the core thing they were arguing about at this point?
I don't really care, I just think it's important to call out obvious, unknowing anti-semitism when I see it
|
On June 09 2018 21:09 iamthedave wrote:
Does anyone remember the core thing they were arguing about at this point?
Someone went on a rant about how conservatives were a threat to his life and then connected that to the nazis. In a later post he said he was a jew without elaboration and then retconned that to how he wasn't really jewish unless you consider white supremacists someone to listen to.
Tldr health care.
|
Kyad I get how you want to build the narative to be completely in your control but its pretty insulting to ignore the other parties points when rehashing a long argument like that. We all put effort in the thread and you should respect that.
|
On June 09 2018 21:43 Sermokala wrote:
Kyad I get how you want to build the narative to be completely in your control but its pretty insulting to ignore the other parties points when rehashing a long argument like that. We all put effort in the thread and you should respect that.
Either give specific examples where his characterisation of the thread is inaccurate or stop picking this fight. This kind of vaguely worded shit-stirring is not improving the level of discourse in any way.
EDIT:
On June 09 2018 21:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 21:09 iamthedave wrote:
Does anyone remember the core thing they were arguing about at this point? Someone went on a rant about how conservatives were a threat to his life and then connected that to the nazis. In a later post he said he was a jew without elaboration and then retconned that to how he wasn't really jewish unless you consider white supremacists someone to listen to. Tldr health care.
If you want other people to respect the effort you put into the thread and not ignore your points when they recap, you might want to start by not summarising their pages-long conversation with you in a three-line insulting, sarcastic shitpost.
|
On June 09 2018 21:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 21:09 iamthedave wrote:
Does anyone remember the core thing they were arguing about at this point? Someone went on a rant about how conservatives were a threat to his life and then connected that to the nazis. In a later post he said he was a jew without elaboration and then retconned that to how he wasn't really jewish unless you consider white supremacists someone to listen to. Tldr health care.
Internet Argument: The Movie.
Carry on... I guess? If you're all having fun.
|
|
|
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.
thehill.com
So if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway?
There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win.
|
On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The most shocking thing is that this wasn't a rule in the first place.
And no, Bernie is no Democrat and the Democrats have no obligation to follow him. You can keep dreaming about his numbers but he already tried and lost.
|
On June 09 2018 09:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 09:33 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 09:25 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:58 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:49 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:40 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 09 2018 08:24 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:
To interrupt this thrilling moral high ground fight briefly.
Do I understand this situation correctly?
With the DoJ's withdrawal its now up the presiding judge of this case to decide if he agrees with Texas or not.
And if he does, can the case get throw up to the Supreme Court or is that also up to the DoJ to file for?
Just how close is the death of the ACA and how sick in their stomach are Republicans at the thought of having to draft a viable replacement in an election year? even if the DoJ doesn't defend it; anyone else with standing can also defend it. From the earlier description it sounded like some of the State attorney generals are going to defend it in court (because it'll affect their state's finances, thus giving them standing). yes, from the article earlier: "The Justice Department’s abandonment of the ACA leaves the defense of the law in the hands of 16 state attorneys general, including California’s Xavier Becerra, whom the court granted standing on May 16 to intervene in the case. They responded promptly to the filing late Thursday by calling the government’s position “profoundly undemocratic” and asserting that its attack on the ACA’s constitutionality would “cause catastrophic harm to tens of millions of Americans.”" So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma? no, tha'ts incorrect. trump has no choice in whether to allow others to defend the law. he coudln't prohibit it if he wanted to. anyone with standing can defend it. likewise obama couldn't prohibit anyone with standing from defending doma. But by your post you said other parties had standing before the doj abandoned it unlike obama who left doma without anyone to defend it. that's probably you misreading my posts. there's a chance I wrote something wrong too; but more likely you're misreading them. Its not even something to dispute. Your post clearly says that the court granted standing to 16 states to intervene in the case. Are you desputing specific clear points in your post? ok, this is you failing at reading comprehension. you need to read more carefully. I never said obama prohibited others from defending doma. obama didn't leave doma with noone to defend it; others could and did defend it. And it's not possible for obama to prohibit others from defending it even if he wanted to. This is your reading comprehension failing. I never said you said obama prevented others I simple made the point that your post indicates that there were other parties with standing in trumps case which there weren't in obamas case. One of domas specific issues in its challenge was that others didnt have standing in defending it. I thought you already knew that. I planned this exchange out because I know how you refuse to agree on the same argument as the person you argue with. Thats why it's a very very simple thing that a normal person could have responded with "hu I guess thats beside the point but sure" but instead you refuse to argue in good faith like usual.
you said:
"So what trump did wasnt as worse as obama beacuse trump allowed the law to be defend by others while obama didn't let others defend doma?"
which I attempted to correct, you then said
"But by your post you said other parties had standing before the doj abandoned it unlike obama who left doma without anyone to defend it."
which I, considering the punctuation, and your prior remarks which seemed to indicate you didn't have that much prior exposure to the subject, very reasonably interpreted to mean:
"But by your post you said [other parties had standing before the doj abandoned it unlike obama who left doma without anyone to defend it.]"
which would in fact be you saying that I said obama didn't let others defend it. when factored into the discussion chain.
Furthermore, it wasn't the case that doma had noone to defend it. I conclude this based on the fact that someone did in fact defend it.
You assumed I had knowledge of a detail of a 7 year old case. That was a bad assumption on your part, and an unreasonable one; especially seeing as you could at any point simply have mentioned it. Any confusion in the discussion because you chose not to mention or seek to clarify is on you.
You planned this exchange out, therefore you disingenuously concealed pertinent information, concealed the amount of knowledge you had on the subject, willfully focus on the wrong part of my post when it was obvious in context which part I was referring to; and because you made an unreasonable assumption, it didn't yield a successful trap, but just you making confusing gobbledygook while I was trying to provide someone who didn't seem to be familiar with the issue with the correct information.
From this, I conclude, correctly, that you are a shitposting troll who argues in bad faith.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
What does it actually take to be a member? Could Bernie register as a Democrat, run, and then register as an independent again when the general election is over?
|
On June 10 2018 00:27 ChristianS wrote:
What does it actually take to be a member? Could Bernie register as a Democrat, run, and then register as an independent again when the general election is over?
that's what I was wondering about too; because that's what he did last time I thought.
|
On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win.
The next time liberals talk about unity in the democratic party they should be laughed outside the room. They're literally changing the rules because they're afraid the guy from the other side of our "unified front" might win.
|
On June 09 2018 21:43 Sermokala wrote:
Kyad I get how you want to build the narative to be completely in your control but its pretty insulting to ignore the other parties points when rehashing a long argument like that. We all put effort in the thread and you should respect that.
On June 09 2018 21:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 21:09 iamthedave wrote:
Does anyone remember the core thing they were arguing about at this point? Someone went on a rant about how conservatives were a threat to his life and then connected that to the nazis. In a later post he said he was a jew without elaboration and then retconned that to how he wasn't really jewish unless you consider white supremacists someone to listen to. Tldr health care.
tl;dr is that Sermakola spent a bunch of hours trying to twist my statements into an easily decried strawman.
The core argument is that some conservatives were saying nice things about a really specious lawsuit to get rid of the ACA's protection for pre-existing conditions, and I pointed how that getting rid of that protection would have really serious implications for people that aren't him.
There was a bunch of nuance around that, but apparently nuance gets spun into straw for strawmen, so I'm not going to try to provide it again.
|
On June 10 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The next time liberals talk about unity in the democratic party they should be laughed outside the room. They're literally changing the rules because they're afraid the guy from the other side of our "unified front" might win.
The problem Democrats have right now is that every time people forget about how they meddle in the primaries to get their preferred candidates elected or the DNC/DCCC make a reasonable case that meddling is normal, they do something like this which is a naked attempt to keep the party as a whole in its current position just far enough to the left of the Republican party that they can run on being better than Republicans.
|
On June 10 2018 00:27 ChristianS wrote:
What does it actually take to be a member? Could Bernie register as a Democrat, run, and then register as an independent again when the general election is over? In theory. It requires people running to have been members of the party for a period of time. It is calling back to the way political parties used to be run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
