EPTReplace everyone in the US government with people of color and I'm pretty sure everything would turn out quite alright, mainly because the US still has decent quality political institutions. It's hard to imagine any group of people doing any worse than the current administration anyway.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 527
| 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 | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
Replace everyone in the US government with people of color and I'm pretty sure everything would turn out quite alright, mainly because the US still has decent quality political institutions. It's hard to imagine any group of people doing any worse than the current administration anyway. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On July 24 2018 00:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I like how Trump makes Google losing an antitrust case in the EU and getting fined, into 'I told you so scumbag EU taking advantage of great American companies we will make them pay', while several days later calling for an antitrust case against Amazon himself. It's peak stable genius. + Show Spoiler + Another bold face lie from Trump for his base to eat up. Amazon was not a party to the SCOTUS tax case. The reason? They are already paying state taxes in 45 states and DC. The decision is probably a net win for them since it hurts their competition much more than them. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
This has got to be one of the more petty things Trump to try and silence his critics. All while fighting to make sure his slum lord son in law has security clearance. But it isn’t like it is going to stop these folks from criticizing the administration. Edit: this fucking twitter link.... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15686 Posts
On July 24 2018 04:34 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1021472838686048256 This has got to be one of the more petty things Trump to try and silence his critics. All while fighting to make sure his slum lord son in law has security clearance. But it isn’t like it is going to stop these folks from criticizing the administration. Edit: this fucking twitter link.... They corrected a typo. The thing you are trying to post is here: plz let this be an exception to the summary rule lol T_T | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On July 24 2018 05:20 hunts wrote: I almost wonder if he's just doing this to stir up some drama to take attention away from how shitty he did at the summit with putin. Unless I'm mistaken he's done similar things before, strated twitter fights or suggested doing something ridiculous to take attention away from a bigger thing that he fucked up or from news stories about his corruption. One bright side I can see to this is Trump is roughing up the precedent of Presidents ignoring the crimes of previous administrations. So that can be a good thing. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 24 2018 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote: One bright side I can see to this is Trump is roughing up the precedent of Presidents ignoring the crimes of previous administrations. So that can be a good thing. What's the crime in this instance? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
I mean US intelligence is basically a government approved/backed criminal organization by it's very nature but I wasn't suggesting they committed any specific crime, but that if anyone still holds any shred of a hope of Trump being held accountable for the damage he's already done, or will do, it's going to take a president that's okay with going after the previous administration. That's a lot easier when the person you're going after already broke the taboo. Just a reminder of the perjury Clapper is guilty of and would be awkward to ignore in the pursuit of nailing Trump for perjury. Even in a city with a notoriously fluid notion of truth, Clapper’s false testimony was a standout. Clapper appeared before the Senate to discuss surveillance programs in the midst of a controversy over warrantless surveillance of the American public. He was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?” There was no ambiguity or confusion and Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” That was a lie and Clapper knew it when he said it. www.usatoday.com | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On July 24 2018 06:38 xDaunt wrote: Brennan, Clapper, and Comey have all been way out of line with baseless, hyperbolic political attacks on the president. Brennan has been particularly disgraceful as of late. None of them is fit to have a security clearance. Them being critical of Trump being what crosses the line for you/Republicans/conservatives doesn't surprise me. Nor does liberals reflexive defense of them since they were critical of Trump. What impresses me is that either group expects to be taken seriously on this. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 24 2018 06:38 xDaunt wrote: Brennan, Clapper, and Comey have all been way out of line with baseless, hyperbolic political attacks on the president. Brennan has been particularly disgraceful as of late. None of them is fit to have a security clearance. Yet his slum lord son in law, with mountains of debt and civil claims against him, still has security clearance. So hyperbole is countered with hypocrisy, I guess. Disgraceful all around. Note: Debt, personal or business, will get anyone's security clearance yanked. Especially foreign debt. The same with civil actions. This rule does not apply if one is banging the President's daughter, apparently. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On July 24 2018 06:38 xDaunt wrote: Brennan, Clapper, and Comey have all been way out of line with baseless, hyperbolic political attacks on the president. Brennan has been particularly disgraceful as of late. None of them is fit to have a security clearance. Baseless? Criticism of the president by intelligence officials might be a lot of things, but baseless? It's honestly bloody difficult to make a meritless attack on Cheeto Benito given how superbly he's used his time in office to be terrible in every conceivable way. What have they said which is baseless? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Clapper fired back on CNN, calling the potential revocation of his clearance based only on his comments "a petty thing to do." There is a formal process by which clearances can be revoked, Clapper said, but it's predicated on wrongdoing or other set procedures. Cutting off access over a disagreement based on speech would "set a terrible precedent," he said, representing "an abuse of the system." Hayden also responded on Twitter, saying that the move by the White House would have no "effect on what I say or write." Source The article also points out there are 4 million people in the US with clearance of different levels who do any number of jobs. Including low level jobs like being a mechanic. Cutting off clearance for publicly criticizing the President is not good cause, even if the critique is hyperbolic. It is another way that the Trump Administration is levying any power they have to attack anyone the see as enemies. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 24 2018 06:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Baseless? Criticism of the president by intelligence officials might be a lot of things, but baseless? It's honestly bloody difficult to make a meritless attack on Cheeto Benito given how superbly he's used his time in office to be terrible in every conceivable way. What have they said which is baseless? Feel free to explain why the following is not baseless: If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On July 24 2018 07:01 Plansix wrote: NPR has a response from Clapper and others: Source The article also points out there are 4 million people in the US with clearance of different levels who do any number of jobs. Including low level jobs like being a mechanic. Cutting off clearance for publicly criticizing the President is not good cause, even if the critique is hyperbolic. It is another way that the Trump Administration is levying any power they have to attack anyone the see as enemies. roflmao. . he said, representing "an abuse of the system." Clapper blatantly perjured himself on national TV for abusing the shit out of the system to criminally spy on millions of people. This guy... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 24 2018 07:11 GreenHorizons wrote: roflmao. . Clapper blatantly perjured himself on national TV for abusing the shit out of the system to criminally spy on millions of people. This guy... He did perjure himself before congress and was never charged. Though I think folks will be pretty bummed out with how light the penalties are for perjury and how hard it is to prove. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote: Feel free to explain why the following is not baseless: https://twitter.com/johnbrennan/status/1018885971104985093 If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. I think you have the words "baseless" and "accurate" mixed up, should look into that. In the meantime if you want to be taken even remotel seriously rather than laughed at and shrugged off as usual, explain in detail why that is baseless and not accurate. Until then you are at the usual xDaunt partisan baseless posting. Edit: the thing you just accused him of doing, is a thing almost everyone in the Trump camp has done, and on a much worse level. So if this is your reasoning then yank trumps clearance for making baseless accusations against Hillary, Comey, muller, and many others. Same with Don the con jr for the things he has tweeted, same with cushner, and jesus christ sa me with Sanders for all her baseless attacks on the press. | ||
| ||
