|
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 |
United States43402 Posts
On June 17 2018 14:35 Danglars 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? 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
Forum vets will get the reference.
|
On June 18 2018 02:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2018 14:35 Danglars wrote: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? 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
Forum vets will get the reference.
Everybody should, that thread is a classic. Apparently Danglars didn't. Kinda funny.
|
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that?
I keep seeing this is a "Republican" problem but last I checked several Democrats hadn't signed on to the legislation (that probably wouldn't fix it but is the best Democrats have) being proposed, Manchin backs Trump on immigration, and Hillary wanted to use kids escaping practical warzones to send a message.
Sure looks like a US problem to me.
|
On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that?
I keep seeing this is a "Republican" problem but last I checked several Democrats hadn't signed on to the legislation (that probably wouldn't fix it but is the best Democrats have) being proposed, Manchin backs Trump on immigration, and Hillary wanted to use kids escaping practical warzones to send a message.
Sure looks like a US problem to me.
I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to:
In the exchange with CNN host and reporter Christiane Amanpour, Clinton was not speaking specifically about “dreamers,” children who were brought to the United States by their parents and until recently have been allowed to remain and work in the country, but children who were coming along borders on their own.
“We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” the former secretary of state said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
Amanpour then asked: “So, you’re saying they should be sent back now?
“Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton responded. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.”
Agree or disagree with the statement and the intent, but there's a fairly massive difference between families at the border being separated and detained, and children who crossed the border on their own being sent back to their families.
|
On June 18 2018 03:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that?
I keep seeing this is a "Republican" problem but last I checked several Democrats hadn't signed on to the legislation (that probably wouldn't fix it but is the best Democrats have) being proposed, Manchin backs Trump on immigration, and Hillary wanted to use kids escaping practical warzones to send a message.
Sure looks like a US problem to me. I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to: Show nested quote +In the exchange with CNN host and reporter Christiane Amanpour, Clinton was not speaking specifically about “dreamers,” children who were brought to the United States by their parents and until recently have been allowed to remain and work in the country, but children who were coming along borders on their own.
“We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” the former secretary of state said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
Amanpour then asked: “So, you’re saying they should be sent back now?
“Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton responded. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.” Agree or disagree with the statement and the intent, but there's a fairly massive difference between families at the border being separated and detained, and children who crossed the border on their own being sent back to their families.
There is no assurance they end up back with their families. Just not in this country and back to one they existed in previously.
I don't see the moral difference. The Republican one is just more expensive and keeps them in the US longer.
Also there's the whole not even Democrats are united against Trump and his immigration policy.
EDIT: Just to be clear, the objection isn't over using child victims to send messages, just over what the message is?
|
On June 18 2018 03:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 03:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that?
I keep seeing this is a "Republican" problem but last I checked several Democrats hadn't signed on to the legislation (that probably wouldn't fix it but is the best Democrats have) being proposed, Manchin backs Trump on immigration, and Hillary wanted to use kids escaping practical warzones to send a message.
Sure looks like a US problem to me. I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to: In the exchange with CNN host and reporter Christiane Amanpour, Clinton was not speaking specifically about “dreamers,” children who were brought to the United States by their parents and until recently have been allowed to remain and work in the country, but children who were coming along borders on their own.
“We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” the former secretary of state said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
Amanpour then asked: “So, you’re saying they should be sent back now?
“Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton responded. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.” Agree or disagree with the statement and the intent, but there's a fairly massive difference between families at the border being separated and detained, and children who crossed the border on their own being sent back to their families. There is no assurance they end up back with their families. Just not in this country and back to one they existed in previously. I don't see the moral difference. The Republican one is just more expensive and keeps them in the US longer. Also there's the whole not even Democrats are united against Trump and his immigration policy.
Its almost like the very quote mentions that...
as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back
|
Any consideration is being made for he child's wellbeing whatsoever? That's the obvious difference to me. I'm not sure I agree with it either, but "if we can figure out who to send them back to and it doesn't seem like a horrible situation let's send them back" hardly seems equivalent to "let's separate every single family as a deterrent to any families in the future."
|
Hillary said a lot of lies. As the policy exists and is implemented that's not what happens. I mean ask yourself how they would even go about doing that...
But those seem like yeses to the question of it being a bipartisan issue and objecting to which message is being sent through child victims rather than rejecting outright the idea of using children fleeing shitty situations to tell their parents they are not welcome.
|
On June 18 2018 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
Hillary said a lot of lies. As the policy exists and is implemented that's not what happens. I mean ask yourself how they would even go about doing that...
But those seem like yeses to the question of it being a bipartisan issue and objecting to which message is being sent through child victims rather than rejecting outright the idea of using children fleeing shitty situations to tell their parents they are not welcome.
There is a notable difference between sending children back to their family's if you can find them and the situation allows it, and separating children from their parents during the deportation process to inflict maximum emotional pain.
That you're to busy hating on Democrats to see that is not our problem.
|
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. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8h4JZxl.png) Vertical lines indicate when FinCEN started demanding names. Is this a way of laundering money or is this long-term purchasing?
Yuppers:
Prior to 2016, all-cash purchases of residential real estate were a key loophole in US anti-moneylaundering
(AML) regulations.
Wouldn't be surprised if a fair bit of this $$ fled to crypto land.
|
United States43402 Posts
On June 18 2018 03:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 03:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that?
I keep seeing this is a "Republican" problem but last I checked several Democrats hadn't signed on to the legislation (that probably wouldn't fix it but is the best Democrats have) being proposed, Manchin backs Trump on immigration, and Hillary wanted to use kids escaping practical warzones to send a message.
Sure looks like a US problem to me. I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to: In the exchange with CNN host and reporter Christiane Amanpour, Clinton was not speaking specifically about “dreamers,” children who were brought to the United States by their parents and until recently have been allowed to remain and work in the country, but children who were coming along borders on their own.
“We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” the former secretary of state said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
Amanpour then asked: “So, you’re saying they should be sent back now?
“Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton responded. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.” Agree or disagree with the statement and the intent, but there's a fairly massive difference between families at the border being separated and detained, and children who crossed the border on their own being sent back to their families. There is no assurance they end up back with their families. Just not in this country and back to one they existed in previously.
“Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are"
It very clearly is an assurance that they will go back to their families.
She said that they would be sent back to the responsible adults in their families, and not sent back before those individuals had been identified.
|
I mean I know what she said. It's just not true. It's an issue that's been ongoing. There isn't a safe place to send the kids and verifying families isn't as simple as just asking for their names and ID's.
That's how we got the pictures of the caged kids sleeping on the floor in the first place.
I get now the distinction people are making in their minds though, so thank you guys for that. Still curious on the concept this is a Republican problem and not a US problem?
|
United States43402 Posts
On June 18 2018 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean I know what she said. It's just not true. It's an issue that's been ongoing. There isn't a safe place to send the kids and verifying families isn't as simple as just asking for their names and ID's.
That's how we got the pictures of the caged kids sleeping on the floor in the first place.
I get now the distinction people are making in their minds though, so thank you guys for that. Still curious on the concept this is a Republican problem and not a US problem?
You're now making a distinction between Hillary's proposed policy and the reality on the ground, that the proposed policy may be fine but the reality is different. But you brought it up to attack Hillary's proposed policy, see here.
On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that?
If you're agreeing that she stated that the children should be returned to responsible adults in their family, and not returned at all until those individuals were found to ensure that they were only released into the care of family members, then your point about Hillary's proposed policy is surely invalid.
|
I mean, what's the alternative? Ignoring that children crossing the border alone will have to be held somewhere for some period of time, regardless of the policy.
They'd probably end up in the foster system or something, and I'm not entirely sure that would be better.
|
On June 18 2018 03:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean I know what she said. It's just not true. It's an issue that's been ongoing. There isn't a safe place to send the kids and verifying families isn't as simple as just asking for their names and ID's.
That's how we got the pictures of the caged kids sleeping on the floor in the first place.
I get now the distinction people are making in their minds though, so thank you guys for that. Still curious on the concept this is a Republican problem and not a US problem? You're now making a distinction between Hillary's proposed policy and the reality on the ground, that the proposed policy may be fine but the reality is different. But you brought it up to attack Hillary's proposed policy, see here. Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that? If you're agreeing that she stated that the children should be returned to responsible adults in their family, and not returned at all until those individuals were found to ensure that they were only released into the care of family members, then your point about Hillary's proposed policy is surely invalid.
If you're problem is strictly the message being sent sure. Obama probably said the same thing (about wanting to reunite them) it's just not what has happened, is happening, or would have happened under her 'proposed policy'.
My problem is with the entire process so I was having a hard time believing people were really making the distinction where they were. Turns out you guys really are doing what I thought when it comes to where the distinction lay in your eyes.
|
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.
There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate.
|
On June 18 2018 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 03:49 KwarK wrote:On June 18 2018 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean I know what she said. It's just not true. It's an issue that's been ongoing. There isn't a safe place to send the kids and verifying families isn't as simple as just asking for their names and ID's.
That's how we got the pictures of the caged kids sleeping on the floor in the first place.
I get now the distinction people are making in their minds though, so thank you guys for that. Still curious on the concept this is a Republican problem and not a US problem? You're now making a distinction between Hillary's proposed policy and the reality on the ground, that the proposed policy may be fine but the reality is different. But you brought it up to attack Hillary's proposed policy, see here. On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that? If you're agreeing that she stated that the children should be returned to responsible adults in their family, and not returned at all until those individuals were found to ensure that they were only released into the care of family members, then your point about Hillary's proposed policy is surely invalid. If you're problem is strictly the message being sent sure. Obama probably said the same thing (about wanting to reunite them) it's just not what has happened, is happening, or would have happened under her 'proposed policy'. My problem is with the entire process so I was having a hard time believing people were really making the distinction where they were. Turns out you guys really are doing what I thought when it comes to where the distinction lay in your eyes.
I'd say there's a legitimate distinction. What's currently happening serves no purpose except punishment and sending a message.
Sending kids back to their family is a solution to a complex problem. And the equivalence you're trying to draw is that Clinton is quote mined as saying it's about sending a message as well.
|
On June 18 2018 03:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 03:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that?
I keep seeing this is a "Republican" problem but last I checked several Democrats hadn't signed on to the legislation (that probably wouldn't fix it but is the best Democrats have) being proposed, Manchin backs Trump on immigration, and Hillary wanted to use kids escaping practical warzones to send a message.
Sure looks like a US problem to me. I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to: In the exchange with CNN host and reporter Christiane Amanpour, Clinton was not speaking specifically about “dreamers,” children who were brought to the United States by their parents and until recently have been allowed to remain and work in the country, but children who were coming along borders on their own.
“We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” the former secretary of state said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
Amanpour then asked: “So, you’re saying they should be sent back now?
“Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton responded. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.” Agree or disagree with the statement and the intent, but there's a fairly massive difference between families at the border being separated and detained, and children who crossed the border on their own being sent back to their families. There is no assurance they end up back with their families. Just not in this country and back to one they existed in previously. I don't see the moral difference. The Republican one is just more expensive and keeps them in the US longer. Also there's the whole not even Democrats are united against Trump and his immigration policy. EDIT: Just to be clear, the objection isn't over using child victims to send messages, just over what the message is?
There is an inarguable difference that you refuse to see because you get a bizarre hard-on for criticizing Dems. It's like you think you're some kind of special "woke" snowflake for being liberal and yet criticizing the Democrats.
And stop bringing up Manchin. The dude's a conservative Democrat from a very conservative state. No one gives a crap.
|
On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos 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. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate.
And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality.
It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially.
|
On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote: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. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially.
Danglars is right. Nixon never dropped below 40% approval ratings, even at the end. Trumps supporters like him. That doesn’t mean that a full 2 years at 40% approval rating is good. It’s terrible.
Also, Danglars is right that Obama was a much more popular and well liked president than Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
