|
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 29 2018 09:40 m4ini wrote:
One can feel how Trumps thumbs are burning, begging him to take a cheap shot at journalists via official press release tweet in the wake of this.
You know, we all know that he's a despicable dickhole (well, the ones that actually have half a functioning brain anyway). But i mean, completely objectively now, republicans (and their supporters) should start reflecting very carefully now. It's their supporters who take up a gun and run into a building. Lets not forget that this wasn't the first swine that took his rifle and stormed into an establishment based on something absolutely retarded that some republicans vomited out and got spread on pro-trump websites.
This should transcend party. But i guess thoughts and prayers, as usual, will do as well. And of course the obligatory "yeah totally mental health n shit".
But you have to realize that it is really the extremist leftists who are the dangerous violent people! They sometimes even burn cars, i heard! This is just one man with mental health problems completely unrelated to anything republicans ever did. There are bad people on both sides. /s
But honestly, you expect way to much honesty or reflection from republicans. What you really should ask yourself is "How would a comic book villain react to this?" or "What is the most dishonest way possible to spin this?". That usually gives you a good estimate of the republican reaction to an event.
In this case, my guess is "don't talk about it and deflect onto something else", combined with a possible digging up of basically any scandal about the involved reporters. Nothing of that has to be based in any fact either, or be related to their job. If anyone in that place had an extramarital affair, is related to the democrat party, or has ever said anything bad about trump, expect that to be repeated forever. If nothing like that can be found, expect talk about how Obama did x bad thing, or about BLM people burning cars. Or maybe some leftist terrorist from the 70s. Basically whatever comes up.
Edit: Nevermind, apparently the correct answer was "FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS!!!!"
|
On June 29 2018 10:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 09:49 m4ini wrote:Basically, if you're doing your job well, presidents will verbally insult you or spy and harass you.
By your own definition, journalists never have done a better job than now. Hehe the conclusion does follow from that set of propositions, but many other propositions also include the verbal harassment. That includes a president that calls any bad coverage fake news, and when the news is really just fake news. + Show Spoiler [Recent exhibits] +But this is America. You can boldly assume an oppositional stance towards Trump. You can keep publishing all that drivel. Trump will bloviate but part of the incessant trolling that Trump is basically a nazi reminds you that they feel safe enough to say it publicly. That's freedom.
None of those are main stream news outlets of any reputation or note. The closest is Huff Post and that is really stretching it. Most news outlets bend over backwards to give Trump and his administration the benefit of the doubt.
And again, the harassment is only part of it. It also Trump constantly lying about the press and calling them the enemy of the people. There is a very special group of people in history that called the free press the enemy of the people.
|
On June 29 2018 10:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 09:49 m4ini wrote:Basically, if you're doing your job well, presidents will verbally insult you or spy and harass you.
By your own definition, journalists never have done a better job than now. Hehe the conclusion does follow from that set of propositions, but many other propositions also include the verbal harassment. That includes a president that calls any bad coverage fake news, and when the news is really just fake news. + Show Spoiler [Recent exhibits] +But this is America. You can boldly assume an oppositional stance towards Trump. You can keep publishing all that drivel. Trump will bloviate but part of the incessant trolling that Trump is basically a nazi reminds you that they feel safe enough to say it publicly. That's freedom.
Do you classify "enemy of the people" as (merely) bloviating?
|
But this is America. You can boldly assume an oppositional stance towards Trump. You can keep publishing all that drivel. Trump will bloviate but part of the incessant trolling that Trump is basically a nazi reminds you that they feel safe enough to say it publicly. That's freedom.
Yeah.
Tell that to the dead journalists, or the counter protester that was run over. Or in general counter protesters who're facing armed right wing militias, how safe they feel expressing their opposing opinion. Or literally everyone on the web expressing their opinion.
I'm not entirely sure how that's funny to you. People literally got killed.
|
On June 29 2018 10:17 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +But this is America. You can boldly assume an oppositional stance towards Trump. You can keep publishing all that drivel. Trump will bloviate but part of the incessant trolling that Trump is basically a nazi reminds you that they feel safe enough to say it publicly. That's freedom.
Yeah. Tell that to the dead journalists, or the counter protester that was run over. Or in general counter protesters who're facing armed right wing militias, how safe they feel expressing their opposing opinion. Or literally everyone on the web expressing their opinion. I'm not entirely sure how that's funny to you. People literally got killed.
Why are you assuming those journalists died because of right wing rhetoric? Seems just as likely to me, if not more so, that the shooter had a personal issue with the newspaper in question. It may well be unrelated to politics.
|
On June 29 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 08:40 PhoenixVoid wrote:
Regardless of Milo's statement being a possible influence on the shooter, or related to the shooter's opinions on journalism and fake news, it's a chilling incident. Reporters don't get paid enough or receive reasonable work hours to endure the slinging of insults ranging from trollish "hahaha fake news" to "I hope you all die your profession is a joke", and having their job debased, or being killed at work. It may be something you believe is all politically tinged and purely for profit now, but a small local newspaper? It's a pretty crappy state in the news industry right now in terms of finances and the mood set by the president, and being in a state of fear wondering if their newsroom will be the next crime scene compounds things. Yeah on that killed at work thing. But seriously, "endure slinging of insults" and "job debased" in this list? Are journalists overgrown children? Ideally, they speak truth to power (and frankly most have abandoned that responsibility), and it turns out the power really really doesn't quite like their deeds being exposed. I get the foundation of death threats chilling their gusto at the execution of the jobs, but please don't lump in a whole bunch of crap that detracts from your point. Obama's Eric Holder labeled a journalist a "criminal co-conspirator" to get his phone records. Holder also wiretapped many phone lines at the Associated Press. Nixon's VP smacked around the profession with "pusillanimous pussyfooters" and "nattering nabobs of negativism." Basically, if you're doing your job well, presidents will verbally insult you or spy and harass you. They're in an industry that sometimes requires "enduring the slinging of insults," and it's best to not let words hurt you.
I fully understand that journalists should expect criticism of their work and positions, and immature slights against their profession and themselves as an occupational hazard. What I don't like seeing is a gigantic industry with thousands of people all with their own opinions and stances being lumped together as a monolithic entity, or people celebrating the deaths of some reporters in a small local newspaper as the fake news getting what they deserved. And yes, journalists in other countries get killed and here all they get is some angry Twitter messages threatening violence, but that isn't okay either. If you have an issue with reporting, it's probably better to blame the higher ups and editors.
Basically, if you're doing your job well, presidents will verbally insult you or spy and harass you.
Boy, then journalism should be flourishing in its mission!
(and frankly most have abandoned that responsibility)
|
On June 29 2018 10:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 10:17 m4ini wrote:But this is America. You can boldly assume an oppositional stance towards Trump. You can keep publishing all that drivel. Trump will bloviate but part of the incessant trolling that Trump is basically a nazi reminds you that they feel safe enough to say it publicly. That's freedom.
Yeah. Tell that to the dead journalists, or the counter protester that was run over. Or in general counter protesters who're facing armed right wing militias, how safe they feel expressing their opposing opinion. Or literally everyone on the web expressing their opinion. I'm not entirely sure how that's funny to you. People literally got killed. Why are you assuming those journalists died because of right wing rhetoric? Seems just as likely to me, if not more so, that the shooter had a personal issue with the newspaper in question. It may well be unrelated to politics.
Political bias, goes both ways.
I'm man enough to admit that i'm wrong though, and that i got blinded by said bias. It in fact seems personal.
https://mobile.twitter.com/erichartleyfrnd?lang=en
|
On June 29 2018 10:17 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +But this is America. You can boldly assume an oppositional stance towards Trump. You can keep publishing all that drivel. Trump will bloviate but part of the incessant trolling that Trump is basically a nazi reminds you that they feel safe enough to say it publicly. That's freedom.
Yeah. Tell that to the dead journalists, or the counter protester that was run over. Or in general counter protesters who're facing armed right wing militias, how safe they feel expressing their opposing opinion. Or literally everyone on the web expressing their opinion. I'm not entirely sure how that's funny to you. People literally got killed.
This is a pretty good rant, but it still does not make you God-king with powers to assign blame as you see fit. For all I know, the crazed Sanders supporter that fired fifty rounds at Republicans playing baseball was inspired by the murderers and nazi rhetoric from people on your side of the aisle. And the awesome SPLC inspired another whacko to go try a mass shooting at the Family Research Council's headquarters. Liberal mobs on campus beat down a professor, her only crime was escorting an invited speaker?
But those ones are funny, right? Just give it a rest. I do not take seriously the outrage machine that picks its victims carefully and picks its targets even more carefully. "How dare you make a joke about [Trump calling everything fake news] and [Journalists going on about nazism and authoritarianism when they feel absolutely safe from harm] when [People literally got killed]" should be left wherever you picked it up. It's partisanship.
But i mean, completely objectively now, republicans (and their supporters) should start reflecting very carefully now. It's their supporters who take up a gun and run into a building.
Yep. You're speaking from your political bias and you're running the same emotional pleas that want political debate to be about blaming Republicans for dead people.
Generally, left wing extremism doesn't target people, it targets property. Animal rights activists destroying shit, eco terrorists destroying shit etc. They usually are nowhere near as violent though (as in, deadly).
This is purely an informational post btw, i'm not gonna get pulled into another discussion where i'm attacked for condemning both sides of terrorism/violence.
Are you really sure insinuating other people are dancing on the graves of victims isn't just trying to start another discussion about who commits more politically-inspired murders?
|
Anyone else get the feeling Democrats are going to fail to stop Trump from appointing Patrick Wyrick to the supreme court?
|
On June 29 2018 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Anyone else get the feeling Democrats are going to fail to stop Trump from appointing Patrick Wyrick to the supreme court?
You have a "feeling" that a minority party can be outvoted by the majority party?
|
They don’t have the votes. If all the Republicans are on board, there is no stopping that nomination. And, sub 100 civics stuff.
|
On June 29 2018 08:49 micronesia wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/schumer-bill-decriminalize-marijuana/index.htmlSchumer just introduced a bill to federally decriminalize marijuana. Apparently it's been in the works for a while. The law would still allow states to restrict marijuana if they want to, and would allow for federal enforcement of smuggling of weed into restricted states. How likely is this bill to make it through the process? What is the main opposition?
Schumer's bill would direct a specific amount of tax revenue to a Treasury trust fund for the "small business concerns" of women and "socially and economically disadvantaged" individuals working in the marijuana industry.
Considering that it operationally impossible to fund such a trust fund with tax revenue and would need to be appropriated by Congress, it makes me believe that Schumer isn't serious about passing this bill. It doesn't say that it is a new tax I suppose- which would likely get shot down by Norquist pledgers anyway. Sounds like posturing to me.
|
This is a pretty good rant, but it still does not make you God-king with powers to assign blame as you see fit. For all I know, the crazed Sanders supporter that fired fifty rounds at Republicans playing baseball was inspired by the murderers and nazi rhetoric from people on your side of the aisle. And the awesome SPLC inspired another whacko to go try a mass shooting at the Family Research Council's headquarters. Liberal mobs on campus beat down a professor, her only crime was escorting an invited speaker?
But those ones are funny, right? Just give it a rest. I do not take seriously the outrage machine that picks its victims carefully and picks its targets even more carefully. "How dare you make a joke about [Trump calling everything fake news] and [Journalists going on about nazism and authoritarianism when they feel absolutely safe from harm] when [People literally got killed]" should be left wherever you picked it up. It's partisanship.
I literally was the only "liberal" here condemning said actions, so i'm not entirely sure what stupid argument you're trying to build here. In fact just a few pages ago i already mentioned that. Good try though, almost made it.
Yep. You're speaking from your political bias and you're running the same emotional pleas that want political debate to be about blaming Republicans for dead people.
Contrary to you, i'm at least able to admit it. That, and the obvious fact that yeah, this shooting wasn't politically motivated, others are. Lets talk Stephen Paddock then, since we're apparently listing shit. No? Charlottesville? Nah, talked to death, i agree. Portland? Lafayette? Where do you want to start?
Again. Yeah, this spree wasn't politically motivated. There's plenty of others to talk about. I'm up, are you?
Are you really sure insinuating other people are dancing on the graves of victims isn't just trying to start another discussion about who commits more politically-inspired murders?
Oh look, you fucking read the part where i made clear that in condemn violence on both sides, yet you still argue that "i pick my targets carefully". In fact i even defended Milo just two pages ago because someone said something i thought wasn't factually correct.
Sidenote: it's right wingers. By a ridiculously huge margin. But good talk. Btw, it's cute that you think you can attack me because i admitted a mistake (you should try that, gives credibility to take responsibility for mistakes). Sad. Not trumps "SAD!" but actual, pity sad.
|
I'm with Donna Edwards on shutting everything down if Trump tries it. Can't stop him from getting a judge comparable to Kennedy but they surely can make things impossible if they try to ram someone like Wyrick through.
|
On June 29 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 05:47 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol Just because I showed how slavery wasn't constitutional despite your guy's protests doesn't mean you should get all sour and claim sub 100 civics knowledge. You didn't prove anything. You cherry-picked a super fringe argument that virtually no one in the legal field accepts, and in the process, ignored not only the fundamentals of constitutional law, but also the fact that the country very clearly acted as if slavery were constitutional for almost 80 years. From what I read of that piece, it seemed more like a provocative legal theory/though experiment and something someone would try to argue make a full legal base on. I had a hard time seeing as anything serious. Just to be clear the position is it was left to the states to determine who the constitution applied to?
Was slavery ever declared unconstitutional? No. When was Dred Scott overruled? We have an amendment to the Constitution itself.
How about separate but equal? Was it constitutional after Plessy v. Ferguson? No. How do we know? Brown. Law is one of those areas adjacent to Benjaminian historical materialism, where there is a retroactive truth effect, a future anterior, where we can say it always will have been this way after the event.
But with a different event, the amending of the Constitution, a certain past is re-ratified: the past where slavery was constitutional.
|
There is no budget or debt ceiling vote coming up, they can’t shut down the government. The only hope it to appeal to folks like Collins that another Kennedy is best for unity. That another conservative means bad blood for a generation.
|
On June 29 2018 10:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 10:17 m4ini wrote:But this is America. You can boldly assume an oppositional stance towards Trump. You can keep publishing all that drivel. Trump will bloviate but part of the incessant trolling that Trump is basically a nazi reminds you that they feel safe enough to say it publicly. That's freedom.
Yeah. Tell that to the dead journalists, or the counter protester that was run over. Or in general counter protesters who're facing armed right wing militias, how safe they feel expressing their opposing opinion. Or literally everyone on the web expressing their opinion. I'm not entirely sure how that's funny to you. People literally got killed. This is a pretty good rant, but it still does not make you God-king with powers to assign blame as you see fit. For all I know, the crazed Sanders supporter that fired fifty rounds at Republicans playing baseball was inspired by the murderers and nazi rhetoric from people on your side of the aisle. And the awesome SPLC inspired another whacko to go try a mass shooting at the Family Research Council's headquarters. Liberal mobs on campus beat down a professor, her only crime was escorting an invited speaker? But those ones are funny, right? Just give it a rest. I do not take seriously the outrage machine that picks its victims carefully and picks its targets even more carefully. "How dare you make a joke about [Trump calling everything fake news] and [Journalists going on about nazism and authoritarianism when they feel absolutely safe from harm] when [People literally got killed]" should be left wherever you picked it up. It's partisanship. Show nested quote +But i mean, completely objectively now, republicans (and their supporters) should start reflecting very carefully now. It's their supporters who take up a gun and run into a building. Yep. You're speaking from your political bias and you're running the same emotional pleas that want political debate to be about blaming Republicans for dead people. Show nested quote +Generally, left wing extremism doesn't target people, it targets property. Animal rights activists destroying shit, eco terrorists destroying shit etc. They usually are nowhere near as violent though (as in, deadly).
This is purely an informational post btw, i'm not gonna get pulled into another discussion where i'm attacked for condemning both sides of terrorism/violence. Are you really sure insinuating other people are dancing on the graves of victims isn't just trying to start another discussion about who commits more politically-inspired murders?
You must know that this argument contradicts your other statements about Maxine Waters and leftist rhetoric being a new low that has damaging consequences because of the behavior it encourages.
|
On June 29 2018 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm with Donna Edwards on shutting everything down if Trump tries it. Can't stop him from getting a judge comparable to Kennedy but they surely can make things impossible if they try to ram someone like Wyrick through.
What can the minority party do to stall/ filibuster/ stop these kinds of things from happening? Are these the kinds of things that require more than a simple majority?
|
On June 29 2018 11:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm with Donna Edwards on shutting everything down if Trump tries it. Can't stop him from getting a judge comparable to Kennedy but they surely can make things impossible if they try to ram someone like Wyrick through. What can the minority party do to stall/ filibuster/ stop these kinds of things from happening? Are these the kinds of things that require more than a simple majority?
There is nothing they can do to stop the vote. The 60 vote requirement is gone after they tried to stop the last judge. And the 60 vote requirement would be removed by McConnell they tried it this time around.
The only people who can shape the way this vote goes are moderate Republicans.
|
On June 29 2018 10:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2018 08:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In 'Major Step' Toward Making Democratic Party More Democratic, DNC Votes to Roll Back Power of Superdelegates
"Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
In an important and long-overdue step toward making the Democratic Party more accountable to voters and less captive to the interests of establishment insiders, the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) Rules and Bylaws arm voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to drastically curtail the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot of the presidential nomination.
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action."
—Sen. Bernie SandersSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long criticized the party's superdelegate system as undemocratic, congratulated DNC chair Tom Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee for the move in a statement following the 27-1 vote, saying the "decision will ensure that delegates elected by voters in primaries and caucuses will have the primary role in selecting the Democratic Party's nominee at the 2020 convention."
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action," Sanders added.
Nomiki Konst, a Sanders appointee to the DNC's Unity Reform Commission, similarly praised the DNC's move to limit superdelegates' power in a series of tweets late Wednesday, attributing the nearly unanimous vote to a wave of grassroots activism that began during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when progressives recognized the way in which the system tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton over Sanders' insurgent campaign.
"This is a YUGE deal," Konst wrote shortly following the committee's vote. "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
The push by progressives to scale back the influence of superdelegates intensified in the wake of the heated 2016 Democratic primaries, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secured the support of hundreds of superdelegates before a single vote was cast.
"No candidate should have an accumulated lead, whether real or perceived, before a first ballot is cast," DNC chair Tom Perez said during a conference call about the new rule on Wednesday. "We have to make sure that we rebuild the trust among many who feel alienated from our party."
The Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to officially certify the new superdelegate restrictions next month before they are adopted by the full DNC in August. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/28/major-step-toward-making-democratic-party-more-democratic-dnc-votes-roll-back-power?amp Better late than never, I suppose. This is encouraging news, and a pretty big concession on the side of the DNC (assuming the power of the superdelegates truly is rolled back). It should be zero, but I will accept this. This is a step in the right direction and makes super delegates significantly weaker. The delegate count starting at +34235236 Clinton before any voting took place made the entire primary look like a joke. This still allows for the same shit to happen, just way less grotesquely. But fact remains, it should be zero. We should continue working towards zero, but be happy with this. You know super delegates were always very weak, right? and that the issue is more about optics than reality?
Optics matter very, very, very much. It is the entire reason Trump won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
