|
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 |
|
|
Northern Ireland27359 Posts
On March 03 2022 06:53 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 02:29 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 01:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 01:32 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 01:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 05:31 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
I am not posting in bad faith. I took offense to the claim that my party is racist, while it is the opposing party that has both historical practiced racism and continues to do so.
I am all ears if anyone would like to explain why it is okay to discriminate against Asian Americans in college admissions. The fact that no one has engaged the issue makes me suspect that you all are ashamed of your party and hoping someone else does the dirty work of defending the blatant racism that affirmative action represents. You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage. I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. I don't think I follow what you mean here by 'politics'. For instance, is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? Criminal convictions would be a good reason for removal. Yes, not going to disagree there, but that doesn't answer the question. Is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? If it is just what they do, then I suppose not. If they call for modifying the law, then it becomes part of their politics. I have lived through at least half a dozen changes to state law regarding who can have sex with whom. I have seen gay sex banned. I have seen 15 year olds allowed to sleep with 18 year olds. I have then seen that banned. I knew a couple who found themselves banned by a new law years into their relationship. That was awkward. I do not call for banning people from congress because their opinion does not match my own, even if the issue is highly charged like pedophilia or abortion. Then I'm in agreement, people shouldn't be banned from congress for the politics they advocate -- within reason. I mean if they advocate for a law to make interracial marriage illegal, I'd like to see their party kicking them out. Coming back to the question though, what do you feel the consequences should be for someone who does something egregious like paying a 17 year old for sex or the multiple crazy things that MTG has said?
I think you've mentioned this more than once. Is this a purely hypothetical scenario or did a sitting member of Congress actually do this?
|
On March 03 2022 09:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 06:53 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 02:29 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 01:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 01:32 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 01:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:On March 02 2022 22:55 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
You could actually get a good discussion going if you actually addressed the topic at hand, i.e. you've got Republicans in leadership roles that headline white nationalist events. You've chosen instead to engage in whataboutism, i.e. what about democrats? they are the racist ones! So don't be surprised if people don't engage.
I personally would like to hear your opinion on what should be done about people that openly court the racist vote today. Do you think that it's okay for a member of a mainstream political party to headline a white nationalist event? What should the consequences be? I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. Well, I reject identity politics because there’s one thing I know. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is or any of these choices and all of these things that are said, it matters who you are as a person. It matters who you are and your character, and it matters how you treat other people and the type of life you live. And so we have to stand together as Americans. She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. I don't think I follow what you mean here by 'politics'. For instance, is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? Criminal convictions would be a good reason for removal. Yes, not going to disagree there, but that doesn't answer the question. Is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? If it is just what they do, then I suppose not. If they call for modifying the law, then it becomes part of their politics. I have lived through at least half a dozen changes to state law regarding who can have sex with whom. I have seen gay sex banned. I have seen 15 year olds allowed to sleep with 18 year olds. I have then seen that banned. I knew a couple who found themselves banned by a new law years into their relationship. That was awkward. I do not call for banning people from congress because their opinion does not match my own, even if the issue is highly charged like pedophilia or abortion. Then I'm in agreement, people shouldn't be banned from congress for the politics they advocate -- within reason. I mean if they advocate for a law to make interracial marriage illegal, I'd like to see their party kicking them out. Coming back to the question though, what do you feel the consequences should be for someone who does something egregious like paying a 17 year old for sex or the multiple crazy things that MTG has said? I think you've mentioned this more than once. Is this a purely hypothetical scenario or did a sitting member of Congress actually do this?
That would be Matt Gaetz. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/14/matt-gaetz-scandal-joel-greenberg-sex-trafficking
|
|
|
On March 03 2022 09:40 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 09:37 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 06:53 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 02:29 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 01:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 01:32 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 01:26 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 03 2022 00:48 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2022 00:27 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 02 2022 23:36 meadbert wrote:[quote] I have not addressed Marjorie Taylor Greene because I am not a supporter of her and thus I am the wrong person to defend her. As far as defending the rest of the party, I will point out that Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy have all been highly critical of her decision to address that group. Mitch McConnel and Kevin McCarthy are the highest ranking Republicans in congress right now so they are very much leadership. If you wish to read the text of her speech you can find it here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/when-we-can-end-abortion-our-nation-will-truly-heal-marjorie-taylor-greene/Here are her comments regarding race. [quote] She just boldly told a white nationalist group that their identity politics is wrong. That bit of the speech is commendable. I disagree with a bunch of her speech. I will not rehash it point by point here. There is a question about whether you should give a speech to white nationalists in which you criticize their identity politics. There is potential for both good and bad. The potential for good is that you may convince some of them to abandon their white nationalism and unite around being Americans. The potential for bad is that when a sitting member of congress give a speech to such a group it grants them legitimacy. Like McConnel, McCarthy, Romney, Cheney and the vast majority of Republicans I disapprove of her decision to address that conference. I suspect the whole group is basically funded by the FSB. I think the harms outweigh the good. EDIT If you want to be charitable towards her it is possible that she is attempting to follow in Jesus's teaching: [quote] If you want to be less charitable, then maybe she just likes attention. Since she is both a Christian and a politician it is likely that a bit of both are going on. If I read between the lines, you're saying that she should be condemned for some of her present and past actions, correct? How do you feel about the fact that most Republicans in Congress stood behind her when they had a chance to condemn this type of behavior? Do you think that was right? I don't believe in removing elected representatives from their committee assignments or kicking them off of social media or kicking them out of congress or jailing them because I disagree with their politics. The proper solution is to beat them in an election. I don't think I follow what you mean here by 'politics'. For instance, is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? Criminal convictions would be a good reason for removal. Yes, not going to disagree there, but that doesn't answer the question. Is being a pedophile part of somebody's politics? If it is just what they do, then I suppose not. If they call for modifying the law, then it becomes part of their politics. I have lived through at least half a dozen changes to state law regarding who can have sex with whom. I have seen gay sex banned. I have seen 15 year olds allowed to sleep with 18 year olds. I have then seen that banned. I knew a couple who found themselves banned by a new law years into their relationship. That was awkward. I do not call for banning people from congress because their opinion does not match my own, even if the issue is highly charged like pedophilia or abortion. Then I'm in agreement, people shouldn't be banned from congress for the politics they advocate -- within reason. I mean if they advocate for a law to make interracial marriage illegal, I'd like to see their party kicking them out. Coming back to the question though, what do you feel the consequences should be for someone who does something egregious like paying a 17 year old for sex or the multiple crazy things that MTG has said? I think you've mentioned this more than once. Is this a purely hypothetical scenario or did a sitting member of Congress actually do this? That would be Matt Gaetz. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/14/matt-gaetz-scandal-joel-greenberg-sex-trafficking
And that article is from May. Gaetz was basically outed as a trafficker and pedophile. The dude reeks of pizza and Florida basically said "eh, I'm cool with it".
|
Northern Ireland27359 Posts
Wait so where are the folks who are concerned about satanic paedophile islands and trafficked minors, given this is out in the public domain?
|
United States44287 Posts
On March 03 2022 10:20 WombaT wrote:
Wait so where are the folks who are concerned about satanic paedophile islands and trafficked minors, given this is out in the public domain?
They know, it’s pure projection.
|
|
|
The Gaetz thing is only a political gotcha if and when he is convicted or pleads guilty, or maybe when we get something beyond "he is being investigated for this." Not that I am defending Gaetz generally or endorsing statutory rape.
|
|
|
On March 03 2022 12:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 11:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:
The Gaetz thing is only a political gotcha if and when he is convicted or pleads guilty, or maybe when we get something beyond "he is being investigated for this." Not that I am defending Gaetz generally or endorsing statutory rape. Was Cuomo convicted? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, its a duck. Do you really care if he beats the case or not? The proven stuff is awful enough is it not?
There is nothing that is "proven." As far as I know, all we know is that gaetz is being investigated, and one or maybe a couple people are cooperating with the investigation. Not nearly enough to crucify.
The dem Cuomo standard is certainly to crucify so long as there are accusers. Interestingly some of those accusations were very much hyped up - it was basically, "Cuomo touched a woman on the waist." I'm not familiar with all the accusations though, maybe some were serious.
|
On March 03 2022 12:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 11:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:
The Gaetz thing is only a political gotcha if and when he is convicted or pleads guilty, or maybe when we get something beyond "he is being investigated for this." Not that I am defending Gaetz generally or endorsing statutory rape. Was Cuomo convicted? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, its a duck. Do you really care if he beats the case or not? The proven stuff is awful enough is it not?
It only matters if Republicans care about having a higher moral standard than they currently have, where racism and rape are dealbreakers in terms of supporting a politician. Unfortunately, these monsters still win their own Republican primaries (senate, representative, governor, president).
|
"But was he convicted" is such a convenient cop-out when your guy is obviously in the shit. We don't need a burden of proof to start absurd rumors about satanic pizza shop running pedophile Democrats, but evidence comes out that a Republican has actually solicited sex with a minor for money, now we need to hold to the highest standards of proof. Wouldn't want a wrongful accusation, now would we? Folks aren't allowed to comment on or discuss how they feel about a Congressman from Florida being a creep and sex criminal, because it hasn't been charged in court yet. It doesn't exist and never happened unless someone was convicted for it in court. Them's the rules.
|
Interesting news out of the january 6th select committee. The committee claim it has evidence that Trump and some of his allies are guilty of various crimes related to the 2020 election and january 6th.
The Jan. 6 select committee says its evidence has shown that then-President Donald Trump and his campaign tried to illegally obstruct Congress’ counting of electoral votes and “engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”
In a major release of its findings, filed in federal court late Wednesday, the committee suggested that its evidence supported findings that Trump himself violated multiple laws by attempting to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat.
“The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California
The committee suggests Trump and some of his allies may have committed three distinct crimes: Obstruction of an official proceeding — in this case, Congress’ Jan 6 session to count electoral votes — defrauding the United States by interfering in the election certification and spreading false information about the results, and a violation of the District of Columbia’s common fraud law.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/02/jan6-trump-obstruction-justice-00013440
|
It's not like Republicans will condemn gaetz even if he were convicted. At best it will be "we should move on" or "what about..."
|
Northern Ireland27359 Posts
On March 03 2022 14:10 StasisField wrote:Interesting news out of the january 6th select committee. The committee claim it has evidence that Trump and some of his allies are guilty of various crimes related to the 2020 election and january 6th. Show nested quote +The Jan. 6 select committee says its evidence has shown that then-President Donald Trump and his campaign tried to illegally obstruct Congress’ counting of electoral votes and “engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”
In a major release of its findings, filed in federal court late Wednesday, the committee suggested that its evidence supported findings that Trump himself violated multiple laws by attempting to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat.
“The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California Show nested quote +The committee suggests Trump and some of his allies may have committed three distinct crimes: Obstruction of an official proceeding — in this case, Congress’ Jan 6 session to count electoral votes — defrauding the United States by interfering in the election certification and spreading false information about the results, and a violation of the District of Columbia’s common fraud law. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/02/jan6-trump-obstruction-justice-00013440
Can something finally fucking stick on the guy?
I mean I doubt it, but I live in perpetual hope.
I mean, personal tastes aside I find whatever technical transgressions he may or may not have made in terms of obstruction not as objectionable as the clear fact these people knew it was total bullshit.
Jesus my own personal Overton window has been shifted so much that ‘some fraud to delay the election certification well, I mean it’d be more tolerable if they genuinely believed that the steal happened’
Fucking hell. Imagine defending this guy for half a decade+, jaysus
|
For what it's worth Gaetz has public venmo receipts of him paying his friend 900 bucks who then paid 3 17 year olds for variations of "school." All on public venmo. This friend has since been indicted for sex trafficking minors and took a plea deal. That's how little Gaetz believes anyone will ever hold him accountable, he did this shit on a public app.
|
|
|
On March 03 2022 14:10 StasisField wrote:Interesting news out of the january 6th select committee. The committee claim it has evidence that Trump and some of his allies are guilty of various crimes related to the 2020 election and january 6th. Show nested quote +The Jan. 6 select committee says its evidence has shown that then-President Donald Trump and his campaign tried to illegally obstruct Congress’ counting of electoral votes and “engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”
In a major release of its findings, filed in federal court late Wednesday, the committee suggested that its evidence supported findings that Trump himself violated multiple laws by attempting to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat.
“The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California Show nested quote +The committee suggests Trump and some of his allies may have committed three distinct crimes: Obstruction of an official proceeding — in this case, Congress’ Jan 6 session to count electoral votes — defrauding the United States by interfering in the election certification and spreading false information about the results, and a violation of the District of Columbia’s common fraud law. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/02/jan6-trump-obstruction-justice-00013440
It's already common knowledge, like how Trump called different governors/states and asked them to fabricate additional votes for him, so that he could win states that he had actually lost. Unfortunately, there's a difference between knowing Trump / Trump's team committed crimes and them actually being held accountable for their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
