|
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 July 26 2018 05:46 basedFinn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 05:26 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2018 05:22 basedFinn wrote:On July 24 2018 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2018 07:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:19 hunts wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 06:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: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? 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. 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. You are completely backwards on this one. Have you ever heard of the "presumption of innocence?" Do you even understand how utterly insane it is to simply presume that the president is guilty of treason without any evidence supporting it? So no, it is not my burden -- or anyone else's burden -- to prove Trump's innocence. The bigliest insanity. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/sMRKtN3.png) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SYMWcHY.png) What do you make of Obama mentioning that he was born in Kenya during his big South African speech? Why do you feel the need to insult President Trump every time you mention his name? All it does is make your argument look angry and petty, removing from the substance of it. do you have a cite for obama saying he was born in kenya? it seems rather unlikely he'd say that since that's not where he was born. where do you believe obama was born? people do make mistakes/misspeak of course, just like Trump did when he got the birth country of his own father wrong. IT was in a recent speech he made in South Africa, if you look up the whole video on youtube, it's somewhere around the 2:50:00 mark. Can't remember exactly. In a book he published, “Dreams of My Father”, it's mentioned in a flyer promoting the book. www.wnd.comI don't know where Obama was born. The best assumption I can make is Hawaii, since that's where he says he was born and you have to be a native born citizen to be a US president. Stranger things have happened though.
Thank you for the response,
I think someone else already answered this well, and noted that obama didn't say he was born in kenya, but he made another related statement which some might misinterpret as meaning that. do you need anything else on the topic?
oh, and he was definitely 100% born in hawaii, for which there's been plenty of proof. there's no question about it.
|
On July 26 2018 05:46 basedFinn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 05:26 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2018 05:22 basedFinn wrote:On July 24 2018 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2018 07:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:19 hunts wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 06:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: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? Feel free to explain why the following is not baseless: https://twitter.com/johnbrennan/status/1018885971104985093If 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. You are completely backwards on this one. Have you ever heard of the "presumption of innocence?" Do you even understand how utterly insane it is to simply presume that the president is guilty of treason without any evidence supporting it? So no, it is not my burden -- or anyone else's burden -- to prove Trump's innocence. The bigliest insanity. What do you make of Obama mentioning that he was born in Kenya during his big South African speech? Why do you feel the need to insult President Trump every time you mention his name? All it does is make your argument look angry and petty, removing from the substance of it. do you have a cite for obama saying he was born in kenya? it seems rather unlikely he'd say that since that's not where he was born. where do you believe obama was born? people do make mistakes/misspeak of course, just like Trump did when he got the birth country of his own father wrong. IT was in a recent speech he made in South Africa, if you look up the whole video on youtube, it's somewhere around the 2:50:00 mark. Can't remember exactly. In a book he published, “Dreams of My Father”, it's mentioned in a flyer promoting the book. www.wnd.comI don't know where Obama was born. The best assumption I can make is Hawaii, since that's where he says he was born and you have to be a native born citizen to be a US president. Stranger things have happened though.
I have literally seen the clip, he says he is the first president of Kenyan decent. He does not say he is personally from the nation. Only really delusional people of low critical thinking skills believe that is some admission that he isn’t an American citizen.
|
|
|
Call me in two years when they finalize the agreement with the 28 member states of the EU. Like seriously, good for him if he can get it done, but lets not act like these agreements happen quickly.
|
See, I read that, see no concrete mention of reducing the any of the existing EU or US tariffs and no statements about how any of the imports will increase, and assume they accomplished basically nothing with this round of negotiations.
(beyond, perhaps, indulging Trump's ego enough to get a better deal for the EU in the next round)
|
This isn't the round of negotiations this is the agreement to start a round of negotiations.
|
On July 26 2018 06:02 Plansix wrote:Call me in two years when they finalize the agreement with the 28 member states of the EU. Like seriously, good for him if he can get it done, but lets not act like these agreements happen quickly.
Even Trump knows you don't need to (and can't) make agreements with the EU member states. You can only negotiate with the EU which acts on behalf of those states. Trump doesn't like it because he would prefer to have a system of bilateral deals with the US being the only strong player in the game.
Edit: Yes I know the member states have to agree on a common position first, but it's nowhere near as hard as negotiating a trade deal with 28 fully independent actors.
|
On July 26 2018 06:18 Sermokala wrote:
This isn't the round of negotiations this is the agreement to start a round of negotiations.
We understand. We just are not that impress with an agreement to talk about ending unpopular tariffs and make good deals. And we have been lied to before by Trump.
|
On July 26 2018 03:35 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 03:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 26 2018 00:58 IgnE wrote:On July 25 2018 21:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2018 10:20 IgnE wrote:On July 25 2018 09:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 25 2018 07:37 IgnE wrote:On July 25 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On July 25 2018 06:07 screamingpalm wrote:On July 25 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
This is the only plan you have right now. Or some magical way to take control of both chambers and win the white house again, while also signing everyone up for the healthcare fight of 2008 all over again.
State level funding and then push for more federal dollars for the program. I wouldn't be totally against the idea, but I worry about how the political games would be played once state budgets are strained. The shit you are worried about is the same this that the traditional liberals worried about when the ACA. They were not wrong at the time, that no Republican buy in meant that they could attack the ACA for 3 full election cycles. But the difference is that our healthcare system has really started to rot under Republican governance. The mortality rate for women giving birth, the merit used for nearly a century to judge the quality of healthcare in a nation, has been going up for several years how. As long as progressive stick to the argument that its, A: The federal governments fault for playing political games with healthcare and B: Up to the states to fix the problem and the Federal government should just foot the bill, it could gain political traction. maybe the mortality rate is higher because median pregnancy age is higher? Nope. Median age of pregnancy is still low when compared to almost all other developed nations, and yet by basically every measurable index our healthcare system is horrendous. The U.S. healthcare system is just objectively terrible, and infant mortality is only one of many measurements by which this is true. There really aren't many positives to say about our system unless you're well off. maybe. but even if median pregnancy age is still low compared to other developed nations maybe our birthing mortality has also always been higher compared to other developed countries. maybe our healthcare seemed artificially better for a while because we had a much lower median pregnancy age than those countries and now that the age is creeping up the "quality" has only seemed to drop because now there are more age related complications to deal with in other words you arent making the right comparison here: age-adjusted birthing mortality within the US over time Infant mortality rate is worse with young births, not better. Infant mortality is strongly correlated with socioeconomic status, which is usually quite a bit lower for women that have children at young ages. Not only this, but the U.S.'s median age of birth (~26) is still an absolutely prime age to have children. You wouldn't see an increase in infant mortality for nearly another decade. I don't know why you brought up age with this discussion but it really doesn't factor into this. well plansix said "the mortality rate for mother's giving birth," not infant mortality. secondly, teenage pregnancy is down, such that the riskier "very young" mothers are going down, while more and more women are conceiving in their mid 30s and beyond. thirdly, a median age of 26 means that for the first time ever there are more pregnant women in their 30s than in their 20s. also see: ![[image loading]](https://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa10/hstat/mh/images/405mmVa.gif) Source Woops. I misread the whole thing. Well as to mother's mortality, Plansix's post hits the nail on the head. The U.S. system is atrocious because it doesn't give a shit about mothers' health whatsoever and devotes almost no resources to their problems at all. From what I understand we are also way behind the curve on providing adequate maternity leave
We're behind the curve on basically everything.
Our healthcare system is legitimately not good enough to warrant a "first world/developed" status unless you're very well-off. Pretty much the only measurable thing that our system does well is crazy, cutting-edge research and treatments that cost more than 95% of the population could ever afford.
The quality and capability is there. The problem is that the affordability for the vast majority of the country isn't, and that results in terrible patient outcomes across the board.
Not really suprising when the system is profit based, rather than health outcomes based. As shit as it sounds, a mother having problems which might lead to death is more profitable than preventing such problems in the first place. This is pretty much true of just about every aspect of medicine.
This is a vastly overstated influence, as preventative medicine is a massively powerful cultural force within medicine now. We've realized the failures of past generations to focus on preventing diseases, so everywhere you look in the healthcare system puts emphasis on prevention nowadays.
|
NK 2.0. Vague promises that Trump will sell as a monumental victory that for some reason people will eat up. The administration wouldn't be throwing 12billion towards bailing out farmers if they thought this trade war would be wrapped up quickly.
|
thanks for the link. so it indeed looks like a total nothing.
|
5930 Posts
It’s the Trump “arsonist firefighter” routine again. He could have gotten that without putting forward the worst implemented trade war in history.
|
hey, if this means we're going towards less tariffs and Trump is trying to sell it as a win for him I'm fine with that.
We (speaking from the other side of the atlantic pond) didn't criticize him for trying to get reciprocal trading relations, we criticized him for lying to his base about the state of the situation.
Take the automobile tariffs as an example since that's what inspired this particular meeting.
If this means we'll drop our automobile tariffs to 0% (or whatever else is lower than the current 10%) and the US does the same I'm totally fine with that.
What we didn't like about it was the notion that it's unfair because the US only has 3% tariffs on cars compared to our 10% while ignoring SUVs, trucks etc which are at 25% going into the US. That's a strategic decision the US made. One that prioritizes protection of their SUVs, trucks etc over their "normal" cars because SUVs sell in the US and people in Europe aren't buying US cars anyways.
So honestly speaking, if that's actually what's going to happen somewhere down the line I'm fine with that. It depends on Trump and his ability to make his followers believe that that aforementioned 25% tariff from the US side never was there to begin with and that he hence hasn't given anything in return to the EU. Wether or not people voting in the US are stupid enough to believe that is none of my business~
|
On July 26 2018 07:01 Womwomwom wrote:
It’s the Trump “arsonist firefighter” routine again. He could have gotten that without putting forward the worst implemented trade war in history.
Indeed, his "concessions" from the EU on soy here are mostly designed to just make up for the retaliatory tariffs China imposed because of Trump's. Neat little analysis here at Bloomberg (may or may not be legit) pointing out that Brazil was probably going to export to China and the U.S. was going to export to EU pretty much no matter what.
|
On July 26 2018 07:09 Toadesstern wrote:
hey, if this means we're going towards less tariffs and Trump is trying to sell it as a win for him I'm fine with that.
No, it's not a win because it should be no tariffs added... We already have surpluses with EU with our current trade... He's not gaining anything out of this other than he can say "He won a trade", the same way he "negotiated" with NK. Until something is in paper saying 0% across the board then he hasn't won.
|
On July 26 2018 07:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 07:09 Toadesstern wrote:
hey, if this means we're going towards less tariffs and Trump is trying to sell it as a win for him I'm fine with that.
No, it's not a win because it should be no tariffs... We already have surpluses with EU with our current trade... He's not gaining anything out of this other than he can say "He won a trade", the same way he "negotiated" with NK.
of course it's not. Hence me saying it depends on him being able to sell it as a win.
Like people (and I above in my wall of text) have said, he would have gotten the exact same thing any day with or without hardball. It's something the EU wants.
Germany sure as hell isn't going to complain about being able to export more into the US.
|
Oh, heh. I don't think the thread ban works well on multiple sites. Looks like your police state thread has some leaks in it.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Says the guy playing Russia roulette.
|
You can't just 'buy more LNG' there is a pretty big infrastructure requirement for it. It´s not something you can decide on the fly. If we will be buying more LNG then it would have been decided a long time ago because you need actual harbors to put it in
|
On July 26 2018 05:22 basedFinn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2018 07:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:19 hunts wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 06:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: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? Feel free to explain why the following is not baseless: https://twitter.com/johnbrennan/status/1018885971104985093If 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. You are completely backwards on this one. Have you ever heard of the "presumption of innocence?" Do you even understand how utterly insane it is to simply presume that the president is guilty of treason without any evidence supporting it? So no, it is not my burden -- or anyone else's burden -- to prove Trump's innocence. The bigliest insanity. What do you make of Obama mentioning that he was born in Kenya during his big South African speech? Why do you feel the need to insult President Trump every time you mention his name? All it does is make your argument look angry and petty, removing from the substance of it.
1) not much. should I? doesn't seem that I should.
2) wrong guy. xDaunt is the one who called Trump insane. He called you insane too. You should be pissed at him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
