| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
On December 02 2023 01:38 Gorsameth wrote: Bobby Scott of Virginia and Nikema Williams of Georgia. No idea as to the why Probably some nonsense about how this should be an internal republican thing. But no clue why you'd vote against rather than abstain. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States529 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24690 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On December 01 2023 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm having trouble finding a full video of the entire debate between Newsom and DeSantis... could someone provide a link please? I see a lot of soundbites and clips being posted on YouTube, but I want to watch the entire thing. You didn't miss much. The whole debate was a 2 on 1 with Hannity posting stat after stat showing Florida ahead on many issues and then just turning to Newsom and saying "explain that." This politifact article shows a lot of the graphics Hannity put up. The problem is you can't really argue with reality so Newsom was left either deflecting, trying to cherry pick his own stats, or insinuating the stats were phony, but mostly just attacking DeSantis as a person that demeans and humiliates his opponents. The only obvious winning issues for Newsom in the debate would probably be abortion and gun violence. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
On December 02 2023 08:23 BlackJack wrote: You didn't miss much. The whole debate was a 2 on 1 with Hannity posting stat after stat showing Florida ahead on many issues and then just turning to Newsom and saying "explain that." This politifact article shows a lot of the graphics Hannity put up. The problem is you can't really argue with reality so Newsom was left either deflecting, trying to cherry pick his own stats, or insinuating the stats were phony, but mostly just attacking DeSantis as a person that demeans and humiliates his opponents. The only obvious winning issues for Newsom in the debate would probably be abortion and gun violence. Thank you for the summary and the site. I watched a bunch of video clips as well, which seemed less interesting than I had anticipated. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On December 02 2023 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Thank you for the summary and the site. I watched a bunch of video clips as well, which seemed less interesting than I had anticipated. The politifact article on the debate itself seems pretty fair. I was curious about it because Newsom dropped the line "I can't wait for the politifacts to come out tomorrow for all the lies you've told." For the most part both parties seem to have been pretty accurate. Certainly some embellishment and truth-stretching but not any obvious lies. Examples of embellishment are DeSantis repeatedly referencing $7/gallon gas in California. It probably hit $7 at its peak in a few areas but I've never seen $7+ on a pump ever. Right now it's about $5. Also, while you will encounter human feces on the sidewalk it's not like you're stepping over it all day like his poop map would have you believe. Similarl embellishment by Newsom on DeSantis's book banning purge as Politifact points out Newsom also said, "What’s wrong with Amanda Gorman’s poetry?" suggesting it was banned. A parent at a South Florida school challenged Gorman’s poem "The Hill We Climb," which Gorman performed at Biden’s January 2021 inauguration. After a review, the K-through-eighth grade school moved the book to the library’s middle school section. It was not banned at the school, much less by the district or the state. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5609 Posts
On December 02 2023 01:33 Gorsameth wrote: worth noting that a majority of Republicans actually voted not to expel him. Party power is, as we well know, more important to them then morality. 105 Republicans for, 112 against 206 Democrats for, 2 against Than* There is a very long precedent of not expelling elected members of the legislature that have not been convicted in a court of law, which has now been broken. The Democrats continue to open new cans of worms hoping that Republicans won't actually notice that they go both ways and go against the uniparty. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28673 Posts
And I mean even republicans are basically a 50-50 split on this. When you lose 50% of your own party in this particular period of time, that's on you. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
On December 02 2023 17:59 oBlade wrote: Are you aware that the first vote to expel Santos (that failed as members wanted to await the results of the ethics investigation) was introduced by Republicans?Than* There is a very long precedent of not expelling elected members of the legislature that have not been convicted in a court of law, which has now been broken. The Democrats continue to open new cans of worms hoping that Republicans won't actually notice that they go both ways and go against the uniparty. Why are the Democrats being blamed for this? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
On December 02 2023 17:59 oBlade wrote: Than* There is a very long precedent of not expelling elected members of the legislature that have not been convicted in a court of law, which has now been broken. The Democrats continue to open new cans of worms hoping that Republicans won't actually notice that they go both ways and go against the uniparty. If Democrats elect George Santos then you’ll be justified in removing him from the house. It’s not like anyone thinks he should only be removed if he’s a Republican. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On December 02 2023 17:59 oBlade wrote: Than* There is a very long precedent of not expelling elected members of the legislature that have not been convicted in a court of law, which has now been broken. The Democrats continue to open new cans of worms hoping that Republicans won't actually notice that they go both ways and go against the uniparty. The vote was along the lines of safe seats just standard politics. The Republicans can add just enough votes to remove him, but keep their constituents happy at the same time. See the graph in this article for instance about how seats that voted for Trump didn't expel Santos while the seats that voted for Biden did. On December 02 2023 18:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: George Santos is the one who broke precedent through being an actually unique shitbag. I'm fairly confident congress has never had a fraudster of his level before - at least that we know of. Absolute no-brainer that he had to go. And I mean even republicans are basically a 50-50 split on this. When you lose 50% of your own party in this particular period of time, that's on you. Santos refused to resign and he was expelled by his own party. 50% of Republicans voted to convict him because it was convenient politically. Don't mistake that for 50% support or against. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24690 Posts
I imagine the "is this okay" logic goes: Democratic leadership: "No, members should not be removed for reasons other than as a legitimate disciplinary response" Republican leadership with a Democratic supermajority: "No, members should not be removed for reasons other than as a legitimate disciplinary response" Republican leadership with a Republican supermajority: "Let's hold the expulsion votes right now. A cherry-picked view of history supports that what we are doing was always acceptable."  | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44368 Posts
On December 03 2023 06:38 micronesia wrote: So if a big election day leads to one party actually achieving >2/3 representation in the House, can the supermajority just expel all members from the other party repeatedly for the remainder of the term? Does that minority have any ability to get in the way of the supermajority if allowed to remain in their seat? If not, I guess it doesn't really matter if they're expelled or just powerless from their seat. I imagine the "is this okay" logic goes: Democratic leadership: "No, members should not be removed for reasons other than as a legitimate disciplinary response" Republican leadership with a Democratic supermajority: "No, members should not be removed for reasons other than as a legitimate disciplinary response" Republican leadership with a Republican supermajority: "Let's hold the expulsion votes right now. A cherry-picked view of history supports that what we are doing was always acceptable." Given how they broke precedent to stack the Supreme Court and how they broke precedent to try and overthrow the presidential election, it seems logical that the legislative branch also gets some of that Republican "attention" too, if the opportunity arises. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5609 Posts
On December 02 2023 18:55 Gorsameth wrote: Are you aware that the first vote to expel Santos (that failed as members wanted to await the results of the ethics investigation) was introduced by Republicans? Why are the Democrats being blamed for this? Nobody is blaming Democrats for a vote that didn't pass that didn't do anything. This is a weird question, I don't know if you read it back to yourself, you're asking why people who don't exist are blaming people for something that didn't happen for a reason that doesn't exist. Anyway, what's important is usually who votes for something, not who proposes something. Santa Claus could propose a motion, it doesn't matter if it gets tabled and never passed. Greta Thurnberg could come to Congress and propose something, and most Democrats would vote for it. In point of fact, almost all Democrats voted to kick him out on the first vote, yes. Because of an indictment, not because of a conviction. And they almost all voted AGAINST referring it to the ethics subcommittee, which is the process that was to actually lead to at least the pretense of a legitimate and official reason to eject him. Meaning they had already made up their minds and wanted blood with no attention paid to the process. On December 02 2023 18:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: George Santos is the one who broke precedent through being an actually unique shitbag. I'm fairly confident congress has never had a fraudster of his level before - at least that we know of. Absolute no-brainer that he had to go. And I mean even republicans are basically a 50-50 split on this. When you lose 50% of your own party in this particular period of time, that's on you. Not really, the real precedent is basically that people resign before anything else happens. This is the same for impeachments. For example Franken basically insta-resigned at the first sign of controversy. But look closer - Why exactly do they resign? A) They did something wrong B) Their existence, because of even the perception of 1, hurts "their" party. B) is a political consideration and not a legal one. And in my opinion it's largely what threw this vote over the edge, which is what scares me. You can expect a group of people with no scruples to vote to eject the other team no matter what, that's a given. Although it shouldn't be. The foundation for most of the rest is that he was making them look bad. Which I don't quite think is the standard for undoing elections. Pelosi still has $150 million, Bowman still pulled a fire alarm like a 10 year old who didn't study for a test, Menendez still got money from Egypt, Schiff still perjured himself, Waters still incited violence, Mayorkas is still in charge of a DHS that has performed treasonously poorly. This guy just somehow ended up being a scapegoat despite that 80% of the government are white collar or worse criminals. This has the effect of normalizing two competingly retarded ideas: 1) look we changed one guy, now government is fixed, which induces return to voter apathy (and which is untrue, which is why it's better this happens at the ballot where people can fix their whole government), and 2) we can kick out anyone who isn't the right kind of popular (which is not democratic). I haven't seen polls about his constituents, just anecdotes. For argument's sake, to the extent they also want him gone, the people who voted to oust him are lucky. But I believe the government should come from elections and not from polls. I'm not 100% on the details, he seems to have done campaign finance and other financial frauds. He DOESN'T seem to be actively using his elected position in the government to commit more alleged crimes, which is a degree of criminality that would merit such an extraordinary measure as interruption by upending democracy to throw out someone who was elected, without any criminal conviction. People often criticize a two-tier justice system nowadays. What they fail to realize is there are 3 tiers. Proceedings held by Congress are not subject to the same rules of evidence, the same statutes, the same appeals, and so on. They have rules but they're not laws. They can just make up whatever they want. This includes impeachments. Therefore when it comes to A) I say this. The guy is probably guilty - Great - Give him his day in court with due process and all his and the government's rights to appeal and object so we can have a confident resolution of exactly what he's guilty of, and then throw him out. It's not as though throwing him out now saves us from him, for example, actively peddling influence (which he doesn't have) - which the people who threw him out are still doing constantly. They are obscenely moving around tens and hundreds of millions of "campaign" and "donor" and "lobbyist" money and this guy gets crucified for violations in the thousands. This is a capricious and useless stunt. It is a distraction. People from both sides who voted simply believe it has a positive marginal political effect for them. It can't be based in principle or else the glass House would have thrown its entire fucking self out. He mentioned he has dirt on people who voted against him. Let's hope some good comes from that anyway. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
On December 05 2023 03:57 oBlade wrote: This has the effect of normalizing two competingly retarded ideas: 1) look we changed one guy, now government is fixed, which induces return to voter apathy (and which is untrue, which is why it's better this happens at the ballot where people can fix their whole government) Kicking out criminals is bad because it makes people think that criminals get kicked out? I think you need to think more about the words that you write before hitting the post button. I’m sure it sounded like it made sense when you heard Ben Shapiro say it or whatever but he speaks really fast on purpose to prevent people taking the words in. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13955 Posts
One thing his continued existence as a congressman was his issues with fraud in Brazil that would be sticky if he was a sitting member of the government. That would qualify under your concern that he's not doing bad things as a congressman just to become a congressman he did fraud and other crimes. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
On December 02 2023 07:25 JimmiC wrote: Could he run again if the constitutes wanted him? I’m with Micro that they do not, just curious if he is disqualified or not. Yeah, he could totally run again, and if he got elected again, there's nothing Congress can do to prevent him from becoming a congressman. Of course, they could then expel him again in the same way. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  37138Sea  3259EffOrt  1598Bisu 1162Larva 799actioN 455Mini 389ggaemo 349Soma 223Hyun 198[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games FrodaN2665 singsing1975 B2W.Neo1450 Lowko490 crisheroes378 DeMusliM375 Happy195 Fuzer  166Mlord164 ArmadaUGS121 XaKoH  117Beastyqt88 KnowMe45 QueenE41 ZerO(Twitch)8 |
|
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Sziky
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
