|
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 17 2018 12:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 12:46 PeTraSoHot wrote:On June 17 2018 05:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Because it didn't happen under Obama? I don't know what "this" you're referring to, but if you're attempting to do some all encompassing absolute that "tell me children were never ever separated from parents under Obama", okay, take your internet kudos or something.
There are legitimate and justifiable reasons to separate children from parents. Medical reasons, child abuse, etc. And that's not even discussing border crossers or immigrants. I would've hoped that such points could be skipped over as standard fact. So someone told me false information, I point out that it's false, and you mock that with "take your internet kudos or something"? Do you prefer I overlook or propagate false information that looks more favorable to your preferred political party? I'm entirely open to there being legitimate and justifiable reasons to reasons to separate children from parents. Perhaps you'll consider explaining that to this guy.. On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. Given that they've both done it, I'm curious about the ethics of the practice in general, and what the differences in context are that justify the current outrage. On June 16 2018 04:17 PeTraSoHot wrote:
Are you wanting them to be put in the same prison / cell / detainment facility as their parents? What explanation has there been for why we wouldn't do that? Are you unhappy about the quality of the accommodations? I'm not really sure what exactly your complaint is. I'm not getting far in terms of real answers. Your comment "Because it didn't happen under Obama?...(okay it did happen under Obama, but his reasons were legitimate!)" is just dishonest. Again, I'm open to there being legitimate or justifiable reasons, but nobody is presenting them and I'm getting lies instead. It's getting difficult to not think this is a manufactured outrage... Read your own articles then. If you don't understand the difference between "rare and in extreme circumstances" and "standard operating procedure", then there's not much point trying to have a discussion.
"Rare and extreme circumstances" vs "Because it didn't happen under Obama?"
And you're accusing me of not understanding words?
*Jesse Lee Peterson* Amazin'...
I'll concede that this discussion has become pointless since I don't think you understand the differences between "rare and in extreme circumstances" and "standard operating procedure" either, and I don't imagine the conversation will improve if that's where we both are.
As fruitless as this has been, I appreciate your feedback and hopefully we'll better understand each other the next time we disagree about something.
"Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them" (Thomas Sowell).
|
On June 17 2018 12:37 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 11:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 17 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 09:18 JimmiC wrote:
Depends on what you are interested. I've seen long articles about the first ladies outfits and what her body language means. Lots of people are interested in that shit, and there is a huge market out there for pretty boys/girls looking bad.
I get the sentiment that it shouldn't matter but it clearly does. Neither leader of the country made it their office based on their policy. I have no problem if the zeitgeist is everybody talking about policies and nobody consorts with those low people. But we have the Drumpf posters here, the small hands, orange face, omg Melania outfit and heels, and the rest ... that get shocked we’re even talking about something that represents another’s naïveté. Yeah, people here have been talking at that level of discourse without realizing for quite some time (but I’m sure are justified in doing it because Trump), just look in the mirror a bit more. It’s pretty funny to be honest. Pretty sure we had random posts here (or maybe on the Canada thread?) about Trudeau's bod So i heard that Trudeau works out and has a pretty good body. I think I saw a picture on here but i cant find it. I tried googling image "trudeau's body" but i couldn't find it. I want to see pictures of his nice body, anybody have it?
I saw only one I can remember. Maybe more in a different thread. In this thread, you can probably get someone to ask “Why are you bringing Trudeau’s body up in a discussion of trade policy? Is this due to Trump?” or “If you’re saying trudeau’s body in jest, own it my dude” if you hang around long enough.
+ Show Spoiler +
I know there’s this one shirtless video if you google enough. It made some girls swoon
|
On June 17 2018 12:46 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 05:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Because it didn't happen under Obama? I don't know what "this" you're referring to, but if you're attempting to do some all encompassing absolute that "tell me children were never ever separated from parents under Obama", okay, take your internet kudos or something.
There are legitimate and justifiable reasons to separate children from parents. Medical reasons, child abuse, etc. And that's not even discussing border crossers or immigrants. I would've hoped that such points could be skipped over as standard fact. So someone told me false information, I point out that it's false, and you mock that with "take your internet kudos or something"? Do you prefer I overlook or propagate false information that looks more favorable to your preferred political party? I'm entirely open to there being legitimate and justifiable reasons to reasons to separate children from parents. Perhaps you'll consider explaining that to this guy.. Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. Given that they've both done it, I'm curious about the ethics of the practice in general, and what the differences in context are that justify the current outrage. Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 04:17 PeTraSoHot wrote:
Are you wanting them to be put in the same prison / cell / detainment facility as their parents? What explanation has there been for why we wouldn't do that? Are you unhappy about the quality of the accommodations? I'm not really sure what exactly your complaint is. I'm not getting far in terms of real answers. Your comment "Because it didn't happen under Obama?...(okay it did happen under Obama, but his reasons were legitimate!)" is just dishonest. Again, I'm open to there being legitimate or justifiable reasons (perhaps Obama's were and Trump's are not), but nobody is presenting them and I'm getting lies instead. It's getting difficult to not think this is a manufactured outrage...
So Trump has begun a standard policy of prosecuting first-time undocumented immigrants, including asylum-seekers and parents, with felony charges, a practice that has caused thousands of immigrant children to be without home or guardian and exposed many of them to conditions that would be considered neglect or child abuse if it were a parent subjecting them to these conditions and not the United States government. Thousands of children have been separated from their parents like this due to the new Trump administration policy. You asked if this was happening under Obama and people said no, since this situation is a direct result of an Trump-era policy. But because immigrant parents were sometimes separated from their kids (for instance, in cases of abuse) under Obama, attributing this to the Trump administration is "propagating false information?"
I'm trying to think of an analogy to describe what a ridiculous equivalence that is. Let's suppose it came out during the Obama administration that Joe Biden had personally, viciously murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people since becoming Vice President, and was quite possibly the most heinous serial killer America had ever seen. But in response to conservative critics of Joe Bidens numerous, merciless killings, a liberal defender said "what, was this not going on under the Bush administration too?" When a conservative critic responds incredulously that no, it wasn't, the liberal cites an article about Cheney killing a friend in a hunting accident and decries the conservatives for their hypocrisy.
From the article you cited, the Obama administration occasionally separated children from their parents when they thought it was best for the child. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is doing it uniformly across the board without exception, meaning no regard for the children's well-being factors into the decision of whether to separate them from their parents. We could argue about whether the former was justified if you want. I think the latter is blatantly destructive to those children's futures. Do you agree?
|
On June 17 2018 12:37 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 11:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 17 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 09:18 JimmiC wrote:
Depends on what you are interested. I've seen long articles about the first ladies outfits and what her body language means. Lots of people are interested in that shit, and there is a huge market out there for pretty boys/girls looking bad.
I get the sentiment that it shouldn't matter but it clearly does. Neither leader of the country made it their office based on their policy. I have no problem if the zeitgeist is everybody talking about policies and nobody consorts with those low people. But we have the Drumpf posters here, the small hands, orange face, omg Melania outfit and heels, and the rest ... that get shocked we’re even talking about something that represents another’s naïveté. Yeah, people here have been talking at that level of discourse without realizing for quite some time (but I’m sure are justified in doing it because Trump), just look in the mirror a bit more. It’s pretty funny to be honest. Pretty sure we had random posts here (or maybe on the Canada thread?) about Trudeau's bod So i heard that Trudeau works out and has a pretty good body. I think I saw a picture on here but i cant find it. I tried googling image "trudeau's body" but i couldn't find it. I want to see pictures of his nice body, anybody have it?
notsureifserious
But there's some photos of his boxing days. And a more recent one of him photobombing a beach wedding.
On June 17 2018 14:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 12:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 17 2018 12:46 PeTraSoHot wrote:On June 17 2018 05:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Because it didn't happen under Obama? I don't know what "this" you're referring to, but if you're attempting to do some all encompassing absolute that "tell me children were never ever separated from parents under Obama", okay, take your internet kudos or something.
There are legitimate and justifiable reasons to separate children from parents. Medical reasons, child abuse, etc. And that's not even discussing border crossers or immigrants. I would've hoped that such points could be skipped over as standard fact. So someone told me false information, I point out that it's false, and you mock that with "take your internet kudos or something"? Do you prefer I overlook or propagate false information that looks more favorable to your preferred political party? I'm entirely open to there being legitimate and justifiable reasons to reasons to separate children from parents. Perhaps you'll consider explaining that to this guy.. On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. Given that they've both done it, I'm curious about the ethics of the practice in general, and what the differences in context are that justify the current outrage. On June 16 2018 04:17 PeTraSoHot wrote:
Are you wanting them to be put in the same prison / cell / detainment facility as their parents? What explanation has there been for why we wouldn't do that? Are you unhappy about the quality of the accommodations? I'm not really sure what exactly your complaint is. I'm not getting far in terms of real answers. Your comment "Because it didn't happen under Obama?...(okay it did happen under Obama, but his reasons were legitimate!)" is just dishonest. Again, I'm open to there being legitimate or justifiable reasons, but nobody is presenting them and I'm getting lies instead. It's getting difficult to not think this is a manufactured outrage... Read your own articles then. If you don't understand the difference between "rare and in extreme circumstances" and "standard operating procedure", then there's not much point trying to have a discussion. "Rare and extreme circumstances" vs "Because it didn't happen under Obama?" And you're accusing me of not understanding words? *Jesse Lee Peterson* Amazin'... I'll concede that this discussion has become pointless since I don't think you understand the differences between "rare and in extreme circumstances" and "standard operating procedure" either, and I don't imagine the conversation will improve if that's where we both are. As fruitless as this has been, I appreciate your feedback and hopefully we'll better understand each other the next time we disagree about something. "Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them" (Thomas Sowell).
Okay, let's clear this up. Are you asking if any child was ever separated from parents at the border under the Obama administration?
Yes, there were some children separated from their parents at the border under the Obama administration.
What is currently happening at the border, what has all the media and government attention, did not happen under the Obama administration.
|
On June 17 2018 11:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 10:55 mierin wrote:On June 16 2018 13:43 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2018 12:13 mierin wrote:
Is whataboutism the new legal standard? Oh, Israel may be committing human rights violations, but X other country is too? How about we come down hard on Israel now, and once that is finished worry about the other countries? We need to come to a consensus that human rights violations are bad, and look into all instances of that. If Israel needs to be the "example" to the rest of the world, so be it.
There are a finite number of countries on this planet, so going through them one by one to eliminate stuff like this isn't impossible. I think the linked article and her op ed ( wapo) lay out the basic rationale well enough. If I made an example of you for the next twenty years or so, you also might suspect this is more about you than warning others. No, that's an incorrect take. If i'm doing something reprehensible, I should be judged for that. If they’ve exhibited a clear pattern of behavior, only the lowest of stupid people would surmise that you’re being made an example for others. The rest will quickly realize some nations with more favorable geopolitical status or in quasi-alliances get preferential treatment. The problem with Israel and America under Trump is we’re not behaving like ignorant saps. Majority-Muslim autocracies and theocracies operate under a separate regime of human rights punishments. The US is right to withdraw, and Obama was wrong to put us back in. His error in judgment has been corrected.
Under Trump America is not behaving like an ignorant sap?
Is this the beginning of your stand-up comedy career or something?
I mean... your President just - as in this week - walked into a massive propoganda picture for North Korea by being photographed saluting a NK general who 'appears' to just be offering a handshake.
You're so transparent it's hilarious. If that was Barack Obama doing that you'd be all over him.
|
On June 17 2018 18:14 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 11:46 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 10:55 mierin wrote:On June 16 2018 13:43 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2018 12:13 mierin wrote:
Is whataboutism the new legal standard? Oh, Israel may be committing human rights violations, but X other country is too? How about we come down hard on Israel now, and once that is finished worry about the other countries? We need to come to a consensus that human rights violations are bad, and look into all instances of that. If Israel needs to be the "example" to the rest of the world, so be it.
There are a finite number of countries on this planet, so going through them one by one to eliminate stuff like this isn't impossible. I think the linked article and her op ed ( wapo) lay out the basic rationale well enough. If I made an example of you for the next twenty years or so, you also might suspect this is more about you than warning others. No, that's an incorrect take. If i'm doing something reprehensible, I should be judged for that. If they’ve exhibited a clear pattern of behavior, only the lowest of stupid people would surmise that you’re being made an example for others. The rest will quickly realize some nations with more favorable geopolitical status or in quasi-alliances get preferential treatment. The problem with Israel and America under Trump is we’re not behaving like ignorant saps. Majority-Muslim autocracies and theocracies operate under a separate regime of human rights punishments. The US is right to withdraw, and Obama was wrong to put us back in. His error in judgment has been corrected. Under Trump America is not behaving like an ignorant sap? Is this the beginning of your stand-up comedy career or something? I mean... your President just - as in this week - walked into a massive propoganda picture for North Korea by being photographed saluting a NK general who 'appears' to just be offering a handshake. You're so transparent it's hilarious. If that was Barack Obama doing that you'd be all over him.
right, but Israel is a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN theocracy. Right-wingers in this country still think that the crusades are going on. That seems bizarre to secular minds but that's how it goes. That said, the whole North Korea thing bothers me because of the hypocrisy of the US *heavily* supporting Japan in everything out of some sort of white guilt complex for dropping the bomb in WWII. So now North Korea wants that same treatment but hasn't gotten that because the US already has a trading partner in the region who manufactures highly developed goods: Japan. This was explained to me by my professor in the Japanese History class I took at ASU. North Korea is lower priority than Japan is to the US. I should at least note that the US trades the most with China (which has the most property in the region) but it is of low-quality simple & usable goods, not laptops & iPhones & cars. That leaves the other party in the region, South Korea, at a lower priority than Japan & China but higher than North Korea, which is belligerent & bellicose anyways. I don't think they expected to get a lot out of that trade meeting anyways but they did get a photo op & some promises to change. Clearly, what bothers people the most about the States (which continues to be #1 in GDP in the Pacific region) is that they play favorites and have their favorite countries that they support unconditionally no matter what they do, & that seems unfair.
The other countries in the region are of lesser importance to world affairs. Taiwan & the Philippines are of lower priority than Japan, S. Korea & China to the US but aren't a threat to the current world order so you might say that they are neutral countries in this conflicted locale. India is neutral & even less competitive than China is in world affairs. If Indonesia played an active role in world politics it would probably be against the US because it is majority Muslim, but it does not so I suppose it's "neutral" or neutral enough. Australia, the "land down under" is good but is trivial economically, although ethnically they are the most similar to American & British people. South America is of even more trivial importance to things in the Pacific Ocean than Australia. Brazil is the best of South America but does not do much business in the Pacific Ocean. Russia does zilch in the Pacific. The worst & most insignificant country in the region would have to be the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
The other thing that is also going on politically right now is that the US is trying to reinvigorate its home economy by doing things that corporations do: trim the fat. That is difficult to do but I do think that change & growth is in the future for this country. That's a good thing. This may come as an irritating surprise but that does mean CUTS must happen on some things sometimes in order for that to happen. For example, they may ignore some messages from unwanted countries & "tune them out." Or, they may sell some properties that they don't have a use for. Currently this country is maybe a touch too isolationist, & should be focused on coalition-building & being a uniter rather than a divider. Whether or not there are some restrictions on the imports of some goods, the majority of US goods come & go from 2 countries: Mexico & Canada. Those goods are shipped by train, truck or air. That does not happen on the international world stage level but instead happens on the local level. Staffing is also a political issue that is talked about in news outlets.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-white-house-staff-advisers-650868
I believe that the hope is that these upcoming NAFTA union trade negotiations go smoothly & are not bogged down by any arguments or disputes, which would be very bad if that were to happen. I think that the US should take a firm stance on a few key issues, such as upping the percentage of American-made parts that are required for goods to have the "made in America" label, and then accept a more "middle-ground" position on those issues in order to close the deal. I hope that the new NAFTA agreement does not look like the agreement that was passed in 1994, but with a minimal number of token changes to the wording of it. That wouldn't be enough. They need to be doing more than they are doing right now in terms of hammering down the specifics of the transaction & letting people know what those specifics are.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta
|
On June 17 2018 21:13 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 18:14 iamthedave wrote:On June 17 2018 11:46 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 10:55 mierin wrote:On June 16 2018 13:43 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2018 12:13 mierin wrote:
Is whataboutism the new legal standard? Oh, Israel may be committing human rights violations, but X other country is too? How about we come down hard on Israel now, and once that is finished worry about the other countries? We need to come to a consensus that human rights violations are bad, and look into all instances of that. If Israel needs to be the "example" to the rest of the world, so be it.
There are a finite number of countries on this planet, so going through them one by one to eliminate stuff like this isn't impossible. I think the linked article and her op ed ( wapo) lay out the basic rationale well enough. If I made an example of you for the next twenty years or so, you also might suspect this is more about you than warning others. No, that's an incorrect take. If i'm doing something reprehensible, I should be judged for that. If they’ve exhibited a clear pattern of behavior, only the lowest of stupid people would surmise that you’re being made an example for others. The rest will quickly realize some nations with more favorable geopolitical status or in quasi-alliances get preferential treatment. The problem with Israel and America under Trump is we’re not behaving like ignorant saps. Majority-Muslim autocracies and theocracies operate under a separate regime of human rights punishments. The US is right to withdraw, and Obama was wrong to put us back in. His error in judgment has been corrected. Under Trump America is not behaving like an ignorant sap? Is this the beginning of your stand-up comedy career or something? I mean... your President just - as in this week - walked into a massive propoganda picture for North Korea by being photographed saluting a NK general who 'appears' to just be offering a handshake. You're so transparent it's hilarious. If that was Barack Obama doing that you'd be all over him. right, but Israel is a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN theocracy. Right-wingers in this country still think that the crusades are going on and that the Christians are ahead right now. That seems bizarre to secular minds but that's how it goes. That said, the whole North Korea thing bothers me because of the hypocrisy of the US *heavily* supporting Japan in everything out of some sort of white guilt complex for dropping the bomb in WWII. So now North Korea wants that same treatment but hasn't gotten that because the US already has a trading partner in the region who manufactures highly developed goods: Japan. This was explained to me by my professor in the Japanese History class I took at ASU. North Korea is lower priority than Japan is to the US. I should at least note that the US trades the most with China but it is of low-quality simple goods, not laptops & cellphones & cars. That leaves the other party in the region, South Korea, at a lower priority than Japan & China but higher than North Korea, which is belligerent & bellicose anyways. I don't think they expected to get a lot out of that trade meeting anyways but they did get a photo op & some promises to change. Clearly, what bothers people the most about the States is that they play favorites and have their favorite countries that they support unconditionally no matter what they do, & that seems unfair. The other countries in the region are of lesser importance to world affairs. Taiwan & the Philippines are of lower priority than Japan, S. Korea & China to the US but aren't a threat to the current world order so you might say that they are neutral countries in this dispute. India is neutral & even less competitive than China in world affairs. If Malaysia played an active role in world politics it would probably be against the US because it is majority Muslim, but it does not so I suppose it's "neutral" or neutral enough. Australia is an ally but is trivial economically, although ethnically they are the most similar to americans & british people. The other thing that is also going on politically right now is that the US is trying to reinvigorate its home economy by doing things that corporations do: trim the fat. That is difficult to do but I do think that change & growth is in the future for this country. That's a good thing. I know that this is painful to hear but that does mean you must CUT some things sometimes in order for that to happen. Whether or not there are some restrictions on the imports of some goods, the majority of US goods come & go from 2 countries: Canada & Mexico. That does not happen on the international world stage level but instead happens on the local level.
Well, NK is a brutal dictatorial regime that tortures and murders its own people. Japan... doesn't. That makes it a more palatable ally.
Also, the occupation of Japan helped the US establish a relationship that's been built on ever since. Very much the same way that the UK is coincidentally in good relations with most of its former occupied territories (US/Australia/India etc). That part all makes fine sense to me.
I don't think people are bothered about the US playing favourites; everybody does that. It's specifically the complete devotion to and protection of Israel no matter what they do. If they literally started committing active genocide against the Palestinians, the US would have their back no questions asked. Multiple posters in this thread have indicated they'd be all for it.
I don't think there's many international relations other than Israel that causes regular friction with the US.
As for the growth part... probably. The economic predictions seem to be positive in the short term at least. I'm not an economist so there's not a lot I can say to that. I mostly take what I read as a decent indicator and leave it at that. Plenty of people seem concerned about long term consequences of the tax reform bill, though. I don't know if that's Democrat grousing or not, of course. There seems to be lots of people saying the deficit is going to get really really really big (as opposed to just really really big like it is now) as a consequence of the changes.
And I'm really not sure a trade war with every one of the US's allies is the way to kickstart real solid economic growth. I imagine that - and its consequences - will play out over the next year or so, since Trump seems dead set on it.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On June 17 2018 12:37 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 11:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 17 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 09:18 JimmiC wrote:
Depends on what you are interested. I've seen long articles about the first ladies outfits and what her body language means. Lots of people are interested in that shit, and there is a huge market out there for pretty boys/girls looking bad.
I get the sentiment that it shouldn't matter but it clearly does. Neither leader of the country made it their office based on their policy. I have no problem if the zeitgeist is everybody talking about policies and nobody consorts with those low people. But we have the Drumpf posters here, the small hands, orange face, omg Melania outfit and heels, and the rest ... that get shocked we’re even talking about something that represents another’s naïveté. Yeah, people here have been talking at that level of discourse without realizing for quite some time (but I’m sure are justified in doing it because Trump), just look in the mirror a bit more. It’s pretty funny to be honest. Pretty sure we had random posts here (or maybe on the Canada thread?) about Trudeau's bod So i heard that Trudeau works out and has a pretty good body. I think I saw a picture on here but i cant find it. I tried googling image "trudeau's body" but i couldn't find it. I want to see pictures of his nice body, anybody have it?
This is a class A reference, for those of you who don't get it:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/100673-nadas-body
|
On June 17 2018 18:14 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 11:46 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 10:55 mierin wrote:On June 16 2018 13:43 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2018 12:13 mierin wrote:
Is whataboutism the new legal standard? Oh, Israel may be committing human rights violations, but X other country is too? How about we come down hard on Israel now, and once that is finished worry about the other countries? We need to come to a consensus that human rights violations are bad, and look into all instances of that. If Israel needs to be the "example" to the rest of the world, so be it.
There are a finite number of countries on this planet, so going through them one by one to eliminate stuff like this isn't impossible. I think the linked article and her op ed ( wapo) lay out the basic rationale well enough. If I made an example of you for the next twenty years or so, you also might suspect this is more about you than warning others. No, that's an incorrect take. If i'm doing something reprehensible, I should be judged for that. If they’ve exhibited a clear pattern of behavior, only the lowest of stupid people would surmise that you’re being made an example for others. The rest will quickly realize some nations with more favorable geopolitical status or in quasi-alliances get preferential treatment. The problem with Israel and America under Trump is we’re not behaving like ignorant saps. Majority-Muslim autocracies and theocracies operate under a separate regime of human rights punishments. The US is right to withdraw, and Obama was wrong to put us back in. His error in judgment has been corrected. Under Trump America is not behaving like an ignorant sap? Is this the beginning of your stand-up comedy career or something? I mean... your President just - as in this week - walked into a massive propoganda picture for North Korea by being photographed saluting a NK general who 'appears' to just be offering a handshake. You're so transparent it's hilarious. If that was Barack Obama doing that you'd be all over him.
No, I have the thread to rightly criticize Trump for speeches in the wake of the NK summit. I have you to make the hilarious crossover that Trump’s correct actions on UNHRC mean he can’t possibly make incorrect actions on NK. Country A/Group B has been treating us like we were born yesterday, and now that changed, but one man thinks none of that is worth touching because you see over here America is doing this awful thing ... it’s a merry go round.
|
On June 17 2018 22:18 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 12:37 Tachion wrote:On June 17 2018 11:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 17 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2018 09:18 JimmiC wrote:
Depends on what you are interested. I've seen long articles about the first ladies outfits and what her body language means. Lots of people are interested in that shit, and there is a huge market out there for pretty boys/girls looking bad.
I get the sentiment that it shouldn't matter but it clearly does. Neither leader of the country made it their office based on their policy. I have no problem if the zeitgeist is everybody talking about policies and nobody consorts with those low people. But we have the Drumpf posters here, the small hands, orange face, omg Melania outfit and heels, and the rest ... that get shocked we’re even talking about something that represents another’s naïveté. Yeah, people here have been talking at that level of discourse without realizing for quite some time (but I’m sure are justified in doing it because Trump), just look in the mirror a bit more. It’s pretty funny to be honest. Pretty sure we had random posts here (or maybe on the Canada thread?) about Trudeau's bod So i heard that Trudeau works out and has a pretty good body. I think I saw a picture on here but i cant find it. I tried googling image "trudeau's body" but i couldn't find it. I want to see pictures of his nice body, anybody have it? This is a class A reference, for those of you who don't get it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/100673-nadas-body
I'm glad some of us still remember the reference 
On June 17 2018 14:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 12:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 17 2018 12:46 PeTraSoHot wrote:On June 17 2018 05:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Because it didn't happen under Obama? I don't know what "this" you're referring to, but if you're attempting to do some all encompassing absolute that "tell me children were never ever separated from parents under Obama", okay, take your internet kudos or something.
There are legitimate and justifiable reasons to separate children from parents. Medical reasons, child abuse, etc. And that's not even discussing border crossers or immigrants. I would've hoped that such points could be skipped over as standard fact. So someone told me false information, I point out that it's false, and you mock that with "take your internet kudos or something"? Do you prefer I overlook or propagate false information that looks more favorable to your preferred political party? I'm entirely open to there being legitimate and justifiable reasons to reasons to separate children from parents. Perhaps you'll consider explaining that to this guy.. On June 16 2018 05:45 Plansix wrote:
The rest of the questions: there is no justification for splitting up the families. It is purely done to inflict suffering on those seeking asylum to discourage other asylum seekers and to discourage the parents from fighting their deportation. Given that they've both done it, I'm curious about the ethics of the practice in general, and what the differences in context are that justify the current outrage. On June 16 2018 04:17 PeTraSoHot wrote:
Are you wanting them to be put in the same prison / cell / detainment facility as their parents? What explanation has there been for why we wouldn't do that? Are you unhappy about the quality of the accommodations? I'm not really sure what exactly your complaint is. I'm not getting far in terms of real answers. Your comment "Because it didn't happen under Obama?...(okay it did happen under Obama, but his reasons were legitimate!)" is just dishonest. Again, I'm open to there being legitimate or justifiable reasons, but nobody is presenting them and I'm getting lies instead. It's getting difficult to not think this is a manufactured outrage... Read your own articles then. If you don't understand the difference between "rare and in extreme circumstances" and "standard operating procedure", then there's not much point trying to have a discussion. "Rare and extreme circumstances" vs "Because it didn't happen under Obama?" And you're accusing me of not understanding words? *Jesse Lee Peterson* Amazin'... I'll concede that this discussion has become pointless since I don't think you understand the differences between "rare and in extreme circumstances" and "standard operating procedure" either, and I don't imagine the conversation will improve if that's where we both are. As fruitless as this has been, I appreciate your feedback and hopefully we'll better understand each other the next time we disagree about something. "Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them" (Thomas Sowell).
Immigration laws are incredibly convoluted, unfair, and in need of reform. The administration is apathetic (at best) towards this very serious situation, while people's lives are at stake, so I'm not at all surprised that people are willing to break outdated laws (and that other people are happy to help) if it means a chance at saving lives.
|
Until 2016, the US property market was one of the last places to move large amounts of money into the country anonymously, with no questions asked. A shell corporation would be listed as the buyer, and if there was no mortgage involved, cash could simply arrive in the seller's bank account via money order or wire transfer with no troublesome “know your customer” questions asked. In fact, researchers at the New York Fed and the University of Miami found that about a tenth of the dollar volume of housing-market transactions in their sample were such all-cash corporate deals. Until, that is, the Department of the Treasury started to demand title insurance companies identify beneficial owners in certain counties. ... Let's look at Miami-Dade, the setting for Scarface and what the authors call the “poster child of foreign and anonymous purchases of high-end real estate”. Anonymous cash transactions by LLCs accounted for more than a quarter of purchases in 2015. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8h4JZxl.png)
ftalphaville.ft.com
papers.ssrn.com
Vertical lines indicate when FinCEN started demanding names.
|
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand.
|
On June 18 2018 00:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Until 2016, the US property market was one of the last places to move large amounts of money into the country anonymously, with no questions asked. A shell corporation would be listed as the buyer, and if there was no mortgage involved, cash could simply arrive in the seller's bank account via money order or wire transfer with no troublesome “know your customer” questions asked. In fact, researchers at the New York Fed and the University of Miami found that about a tenth of the dollar volume of housing-market transactions in their sample were such all-cash corporate deals. Until, that is, the Department of the Treasury started to demand title insurance companies identify beneficial owners in certain counties. ... Let's look at Miami-Dade, the setting for Scarface and what the authors call the “poster child of foreign and anonymous purchases of high-end real estate”. Anonymous cash transactions by LLCs accounted for more than a quarter of purchases in 2015. ftalphaville.ft.compapers.ssrn.comVertical lines indicate when FinCEN started demanding names.
Is this a way of laundering money or is this long-term purchasing?
|
On June 18 2018 00:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Until 2016, the US property market was one of the last places to move large amounts of money into the country anonymously, with no questions asked. A shell corporation would be listed as the buyer, and if there was no mortgage involved, cash could simply arrive in the seller's bank account via money order or wire transfer with no troublesome “know your customer” questions asked. In fact, researchers at the New York Fed and the University of Miami found that about a tenth of the dollar volume of housing-market transactions in their sample were such all-cash corporate deals. Until, that is, the Department of the Treasury started to demand title insurance companies identify beneficial owners in certain counties. ... Let's look at Miami-Dade, the setting for Scarface and what the authors call the “poster child of foreign and anonymous purchases of high-end real estate”. Anonymous cash transactions by LLCs accounted for more than a quarter of purchases in 2015. ftalphaville.ft.compapers.ssrn.comVertical lines indicate when FinCEN started demanding names.
What does this mean? I get that the corporate buyers line drops to almost nothing, but what is the effect of that on the United States? Do corporations have other ways around this, or what?
|
On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand.
According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%).
It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it.
|
On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it.
If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is.
|
On June 18 2018 01:32 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 00:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Until 2016, the US property market was one of the last places to move large amounts of money into the country anonymously, with no questions asked. A shell corporation would be listed as the buyer, and if there was no mortgage involved, cash could simply arrive in the seller's bank account via money order or wire transfer with no troublesome “know your customer” questions asked. In fact, researchers at the New York Fed and the University of Miami found that about a tenth of the dollar volume of housing-market transactions in their sample were such all-cash corporate deals. Until, that is, the Department of the Treasury started to demand title insurance companies identify beneficial owners in certain counties. ... Let's look at Miami-Dade, the setting for Scarface and what the authors call the “poster child of foreign and anonymous purchases of high-end real estate”. Anonymous cash transactions by LLCs accounted for more than a quarter of purchases in 2015. Vertical lines indicate when FinCEN started demanding names. What does this mean? I get that the corporate buyers line drops to almost nothing, but what is the effect of that on the United States? Do corporations have other ways around this, or what?
The biggest side-effect of this dynamic, to answer your first question, is that we don't really know what it means because of how anonymous the whole thing is. It's difficult to get a grasp on who owns what where without some level of across the board disclosure requirements.
|
On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is.
aye, it is really sad; but such is the reality of the world.
there's plenty of research into how people make political decisions; if you want to read up more about the thought processes that go into it.
|
On June 18 2018 01:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 00:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Until 2016, the US property market was one of the last places to move large amounts of money into the country anonymously, with no questions asked. A shell corporation would be listed as the buyer, and if there was no mortgage involved, cash could simply arrive in the seller's bank account via money order or wire transfer with no troublesome “know your customer” questions asked. In fact, researchers at the New York Fed and the University of Miami found that about a tenth of the dollar volume of housing-market transactions in their sample were such all-cash corporate deals. Until, that is, the Department of the Treasury started to demand title insurance companies identify beneficial owners in certain counties. ... Let's look at Miami-Dade, the setting for Scarface and what the authors call the “poster child of foreign and anonymous purchases of high-end real estate”. Anonymous cash transactions by LLCs accounted for more than a quarter of purchases in 2015. Vertical lines indicate when FinCEN started demanding names. Is this a way of laundering money or is this long-term purchasing?
As a Miami-Dade resident, it’s a way to launder money. Miami is a haven to launder money from all over the world. We have these high rises that are empty, owned by outside “investments”, that are driving the cost of living here to NY standard. It’s really bad, and no one does anything about it.
|
On June 18 2018 01:54 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. aye, it is really sad; but such is the reality of the world. there's plenty of research into how people make political decisions; if you want to read up more about the thought processes that go into it.
Trump's supporters swallow his shit like its candy. He says he's being tough, then he's being tough. He says the US is winning, the US is winning. Even better, he's not just saying it, he's concretely doing things as well. Double tough.
And look at Danglars' post from up above a little. He's sticking it to those nations who are making the US look like a fool. Apparently.
It's sad, bad and mad, but that's US politics in the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
