| 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 | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16121 Posts
On March 23 2024 17:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I guess we'll find out in a few weeks, although perhaps by then, MAGA may have chilled out over wanting to oust MJ. It's Marjorie Taylor Greene leading the charge to oust the current speaker. She'll still be doing it a few weeks from now. I don't think she's capable of chilling out. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On March 23 2024 11:46 Vindicare605 wrote: Nah, I'm thinking at this point some of the pissed off Republicans that are sick of the MAGA wing might just throw enough votes at Jeffries to get him elected just to spite them. I don't trust the Republicans to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't put it past them to act on their individual vendettas at the expense of party unity especially when party unity seems to be fracturing at the seams right now. And if the Republicans only hold a 1 vote majority, all the Dems would need is 2 votes. They're still Republicans. I don't expect that to ever happen. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26473 Posts
On March 24 2024 10:37 gobbledydook wrote: They're still Republicans. I don't expect that to ever happen. I mean at some stage I’m sure many would like to, I’m just unsure what the conditions look like that see it happen. Somebody like MTG is close to the worst colleague imaginable Either after the fact in a ‘Hm, turns out we couldn’t control this lot’, or from the outset I’m sure there are plenty of GOP legislators who have no truck with the MAGA crowd, even if it’s merely in private. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23780 Posts
On March 24 2024 11:05 WombaT wrote: I mean at some stage I’m sure many would like to, I’m just unsure what the conditions look like that see it happen. Somebody like MTG is close to the worst colleague imaginable Either after the fact in a ‘Hm, turns out we couldn’t control this lot’, or from the outset I’m sure there are plenty of GOP legislators who have no truck with the MAGA crowd, even if it’s merely in private. I think there's a lot to learn in understanding the differences/similarities between Reagan Republicans and Biden Democrats as compared to Trump Republicans. Then juxtaposing them with the political majorities throughout the US's history. As an example, Obama's signature healthcare plan was too right wing for Nixon era Republicans and way too far right for Democrats in the 70's. But by the 2000's it was so radically left wing it took a Democrat supermajority to pass while the Democrat position from the 70's isn't even on the table. + Show Spoiler + While Republicans plot new ways to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, it’s easy to forget that for years they’ve been arguing that any comprehensive health insurance system be designed exactly like the one that officially began October 1st, glitches and all. For as many years Democrats tried to graft healthcare onto Social Security and Medicare, and pay for it through the payroll tax. But Republicans countered that any system must be based on private insurance and paid for with a combination of subsidies for low-income purchasers and a requirement that the younger and healthier sign up. Not surprisingly, private health insurers cheered on the Republicans while doing whatever they could to block Democrats from creating a public insurance system. In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today’s Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon’s plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar? Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree. Now that the essential Republican plan for healthcare is being implemented nationally, health insurance companies are jubilant. Democrat's/Obama's most significant piece of legislation for decades is reasonably described in Christian Science Monitor as "Now that the essential Republican plan for healthcare is being implemented nationally, health insurance companies are jubilant" .While people let that sink in, they should reconsider what that indicates we could expect 20-50 years from now regarding Biden,Trump, and US democracy. EDIT: Meant to include this too: Looking at this comparison of the plans, Freed says, it’s easy to see that Nixon’s proposals were far more “liberal” than what passed under the Affordable Care Act during President Obama’s first term. + Show Spoiler + Yet, he notes, the rhetoric directed against the ACA – as “a radical liberal plan,” “socialized medicine” and a “job killer” – seeks to paint the law in extremely inflammatory tones. At the time of Nixon’s proposals, those seeking a single-payer plan, led by Senator Ted Kennedy, scoffed and said that his plans did not go far enough. The Democrats’ early-70s health proposal was far more liberal than anything the party has proposed in recent times, and they heaped scorn on the Republican plan. Freed notes that the approach Nixon took, which preserved the insurance industry’s role in health care, would have covered more people than the ACA does. ihpi.umich.edu | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9188 Posts
On March 25 2024 02:41 JimmiC wrote: There was a bunch of talk on here about how evil Biden was for pushing through the Israel package, but I think informed voters no matter their position on the conflict would be very supportive of the package. There are only 4 reasons I can think of that people would be mad it. 1) They hate Palestinians so much for Oct. 7th that they want collective punishment for all of them. (9.2 of the 14Bn are for aid to the Palestinians 2) They hate Israelis or Jews for whatever reason so much and believe in collective punishment so they want them not to be able to take out the rockets constantly fired at civilian targets (4Bn for Israeli missile defense) 3) They are fine with massive amounts of ecological damage from sunk tankers in the Red Sea (rest to defend against the Houthi missile strikes) 4) They are uninformed and either assume it is for the offensive or just hear Israel and think bad. I guess also their social media could be uniformed or purposely misleading them for more clicks/Russian propaganda or whatever. I for one am happy that Biden, more than most, avoids the politics game and just does the right thing. Pushing that through, was clearly the right thing. You have a source for the bolded part? I can't find a proper breakdown anywhere, but I read on Times of Israel that the 9bn in humanitarian aid is for both Ukraine and Gaza and it's part of the overall 95bn foreign aid, not part of Israel's 14bn slice. And that the Israel aid is not just for air defense but also for weapons stockpiles. There's also a report from WSJ that it includes bombs. https://www.timesofisrael.com/14b-us-aid-package-for-israel-crafted-with-eye-to-multi-front-war-not-just-gaza/ It's somewhat telling that we get specific numbers of systems/vehicles/shells/etc when they ship to Ukraine but what's being sent to Israel is all hush-hush and we have to rely on leaks. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45387 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18247 Posts
On March 26 2024 03:38 brian wrote: that’s just good business, he’d be stupid not to take advantage. To be fair, it is good business and he would be stupid not to take advantage. What's ridiculous is the judge allowing it. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On March 26 2024 01:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's bond payments just dropped over 2/3, from $545 million to $175 million, simply because he couldn't afford them and no one trusted him enough to lend him the money. His impoverished billionaire life has just been so difficult and he's been so hard-working; it's great that he got such a well-deserved break /s It's only down to a third while he appeals it, if/when he loses he would still have to play the same amount. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45387 Posts
On March 26 2024 04:01 Gahlo wrote: It's only down to a third while he appeals it, if/when he loses he would still have to play the same amount. Hopefully he has to shell out the full amount. | ||
KwarK
United States43758 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4921 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22165 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18247 Posts
On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. I did a quick google, and it seems like it is bog standard all over the US for an appeals bond to be for the same amount or more than the fine. Of course, not many people get fined half a billion dollars... | ||
|
KwarK
United States43758 Posts
On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Calm
Royal vs Mind
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs PianO
Flash vs Speed
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Leta
Queen vs Jaedong
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
