|
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 May 01 2022 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2022 01:18 gobbledydook wrote:On April 30 2022 23:34 Kyadytim wrote:On April 30 2022 21:23 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial refusal of Trump to greenlight the transfer of aid to Ukraine cannot be tied to the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022.
At that time, Russia was not openly invading Ukraine, other than a small-scale skirmish that had already been happening for years in the Donbas. I do not think that anyone at that time, no matter their background, would have considered impending invasion as a factor in any decision to provide aid to Ukraine.
This does not excuse him of his behaviour, but to argue he would do the same now is to completely ignore the changed circumstances and is an unfair argument. At the time, Russia had already invaded Ukraine, having outright annexed Crimea in 2014. That's conveniently ignoring the fact that it was not widely viewed as a wholescale invasion of Ukraine, but a dispute over some contested territories. Yeah no, the annexation of Crimea is not seen as 'merely' a dispute over contested territory. The hint is in the way its referred to, annexation. Taking land that belongs to someone else and adding it to your own country.
Taking part of this discussion, to me it looked like noone in the world gave a single shit about Russia invading Crimea at the time. But onto Trump's doings and not-doings, i actually would like to ask this, since i am genuinely interested in this;
If you discount everything Trump has said (because let's be honest pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is more or less bullshit  ), but look at what he did or didn't do, how did he perform in "Russo-politics"? Because, from the near history it is true that when Trump was president, it was the only span of time in the last 15 years (at least) where Russia (Putin) hasn't used military to "advance his needs", anywhere.
|
It's true that the West called the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of parts of the Donbas illegal.
It's also true that other than put some sanctions on at the start, everyone pretty much put it on the back burner after that.
It was not an active topic by the time Trump became president.
|
The annexation of Crimea was swallowed by the west after Merkel submitted to Russia after seeing the threat of gas being stopped. Also no one wanted to lose another couple hundred thousand dead fighting over the thing again.
Preparing Ukraine for the next invasion was a topic by the time trump became president and was something actively persued by canadia and the British. His reluctance to help more is well noted and his lack of commitment to NATO seems very suspicious in hindsight.
Do you really see him rallying the west like Biden has behind Ukraine? Do you think its less than likely that Trump withdraws the USA from NATO if he got a second term?
|
On May 01 2022 11:14 Sermokala wrote:
The annexation of Crimea was swallowed by the west after Merkel submitted to Russia after seeing the threat of gas being stopped. Also no one wanted to lose another couple hundred thousand dead fighting over the thing again.
Preparing Ukraine for the next invasion was a topic by the time trump became president and was something actively persued by canadia and the British. His reluctance to help more is well noted and his lack of commitment to NATO seems very suspicious in hindsight.
Do you really see him rallying the west like Biden has behind Ukraine? Do you think its less than likely that Trump withdraws the USA from NATO if he got a second term?
It's impossible to tell.
It seemed the main issue Trump had was the other members not pulling their weight. To be honest, all he extracted from them was vague promises of increasing spending in the future.
It took an actual war to get the freeloaders like Germany to actually seriously invest into the military.
|
On May 01 2022 08:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2022 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On May 01 2022 01:18 gobbledydook wrote:On April 30 2022 23:34 Kyadytim wrote:On April 30 2022 21:23 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial refusal of Trump to greenlight the transfer of aid to Ukraine cannot be tied to the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022.
At that time, Russia was not openly invading Ukraine, other than a small-scale skirmish that had already been happening for years in the Donbas. I do not think that anyone at that time, no matter their background, would have considered impending invasion as a factor in any decision to provide aid to Ukraine.
This does not excuse him of his behaviour, but to argue he would do the same now is to completely ignore the changed circumstances and is an unfair argument. At the time, Russia had already invaded Ukraine, having outright annexed Crimea in 2014. That's conveniently ignoring the fact that it was not widely viewed as a wholescale invasion of Ukraine, but a dispute over some contested territories. Yeah no, the annexation of Crimea is not seen as 'merely' a dispute over contested territory. The hint is in the way its referred to, annexation. Taking land that belongs to someone else and adding it to your own country. Taking part of this discussion, to me it looked like noone in the world gave a single shit about Russia invading Crimea at the time. But onto Trump's doings and not-doings, i actually would like to ask this, since i am genuinely interested in this; If you discount everything Trump has said (because let's be honest pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is more or less bullshit ), but look at what he did or didn't do, how did he perform in "Russo-politics"? Because, from the near history it is true that when Trump was president, it was the only span of time in the last 15 years (at least) where Russia (Putin) hasn't used military to "advance his needs", anywhere. Pretty sure Russia was using its military to advance its needs in Syria while Trump was President, it didn't start under him but it certainly continued.
I also imagine a very big part of why the world didn't react harder to Crimea was that there wasn't much of a fight over it, Russia walked in and Ukraine got the hell out. Which is what Putin hoped to repeat with the '3 day special operation'. Take Ukraine without much of a fight before the rest of the World gets its act together. And if it had succeeded it would likely have worked.
It didn't because Ukraine obviously values its entire existence a lot more then a province and because it has spend the last 8 years preparing for this.
And Trump used it to blackmail a foreign country into prosecuting the son of a political opponent. That is what his actions say.
|
|
|
Biden has established a "Disinformation Governance Board" within the Department of Homeland Security. Many have described the board as a Ministry of Truth. It does seem as though the purpose of any such board is to decide what info is true and what info is false. But aside from that, the person Biden chose to lead the board has a demonstrated history of being an abject partisan. Whatever is the latest democratic talking point is her opinion. Personally I think anyone in charge of a board like this should have a demonstrated history of being in the political center.
|
On May 03 2022 09:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:Biden has established a "Disinformation Governance Board" within the Department of Homeland Security. Many have described the board as a Ministry of Truth. It does seem as though the purpose of any such board is to decide what info is true and what info is false. But aside from that, the person Biden chose to lead the board has a demonstrated history of being an abject partisan. Whatever is the latest democratic talking point is her opinion. Personally I think anyone in charge of a board like this should have a demonstrated history of being in the political center. https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1521223344976183297https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1520162360454955008
Wait, so now we're caring what words get parroted by opposing countries to their people as propaganda?
|
|
|
United States43947 Posts
Time for a second amendment enthusiast to free up one of the lifetime appointments and allow the balance of the court to be changed by voting or something totally not a call for the murder of Kavanaugh.
|
United States43947 Posts
On May 03 2022 09:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:Biden has established a "Disinformation Governance Board" within the Department of Homeland Security. Many have described the board as a Ministry of Truth. It does seem as though the purpose of any such board is to decide what info is true and what info is false. But aside from that, the person Biden chose to lead the board has a demonstrated history of being an abject partisan. Whatever is the latest democratic talking point is her opinion. Personally I think anyone in charge of a board like this should have a demonstrated history of being in the political center. https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1521223344976183297https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1520162360454955008
You are aware that claims can be evaluated and determined to be true or false, right?
|
United States24769 Posts
If so, I see either an expansion of SCOTUS in response or 1920s style compliance with the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On May 03 2022 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 09:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:Biden has established a "Disinformation Governance Board" within the Department of Homeland Security. Many have described the board as a Ministry of Truth. It does seem as though the purpose of any such board is to decide what info is true and what info is false. But aside from that, the person Biden chose to lead the board has a demonstrated history of being an abject partisan. Whatever is the latest democratic talking point is her opinion. Personally I think anyone in charge of a board like this should have a demonstrated history of being in the political center. https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1521223344976183297https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1520162360454955008 You are aware that claims can be evaluated and determined to be true or false, right?
One way to express certainty when you don't have an actual argument is to avoid stating your reasoning.
|
|
|
On May 03 2022 10:52 Husyelt wrote:
What the literal fuck
It's about what the law is, not what policy should be. The latter is up to the legislature, not the Supreme Court. A woman's right to choose is not part of the constitution (and it is premised on a concept, substantive due process, that is itself not part of the constitution), which means that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
|
The main argument raised by Alito is that normally there is a right for the individual to choose what they want to do, but in the case of abortion since this affects another life, that right does not automatically apply, and the moral decision of whose right is more important, the mother's or the unborn child’s, is not something the courts should decide. Therefore the people, represented by the legislature, should be allowed to decide this as they please.
Of course this ruling assumes that a foetus is a distinct life, which not everyone agrees. This however is a moral question, not a legal question and according to Alito’s doctrine, should also be decided by the people’s representatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
