EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 685
| 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 | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37043 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: In other news, Bolton and Trump threatening the ICC with travel bans and sanctions if they investigate possible war crimes in Afghanistan committed by the US. Normally we would just ignore the findings, so this is a new level coming out of the Trump administration. Threats for even considering an investigation and that the president may not be able to follow through with legally. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
On September 11 2018 05:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If the ICC does it and they find something, hand the guilty over. We are not immune to international prosecution for war crimes committed in a war that should be over and done with already. American exceptionalism: the USA does not does not submit to the court, so they are immune by definition. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On September 11 2018 05:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If the ICC does it and they find something, hand the guilty over. We are not immune to international prosecution for war crimes committed in a war that should be over and done with already. Does your law allow that? Here in Brazil it's unconstitutional to extradite natual born brazillians. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On September 11 2018 06:10 Sbrubbles wrote: Does your law allow that? Here in Brazil it's unconstitutional to extradite natual born brazillians. It is within the law, we just don't really do it. There is nothing saying we can't | ||
|
Caelum93
62 Posts
On September 11 2018 06:11 IyMoon wrote: It is within the law, we just don't really do it. There is nothing saying we can't Well it is in the international law (of war) and if they recognized it and ratify this Charta then there should be no issues with that..It wouldnt be the 1rst case like this in Den Haag. If the US give a fuck like always about international laws it would be not nothing new but they would offend in the public the UN/ICJ. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On September 11 2018 06:35 Plansix wrote: The US doesn't have a history of accepting the authority Probably could have just cut the post off here lol | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 11 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: Probably could have just cut the post off here lol The ICC isn't really used to bring war crimes charges against western nations that haven't been completely steamrolled during a war and unconditionally surrendered. Everyone talks a good game,but none of us are turning over our citizens. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On September 11 2018 06:55 Plansix wrote: The ICC isn't really used to bring war crimes charges against western nations that haven't been completely steamrolled during a war and unconditionally surrendered. Everyone talks a good game,but none of us are turning over our citizens. So if some British dude chopped a bunch of people's heads off in the US, but managed to get back to England, he'd be fine? | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On September 11 2018 06:58 Mohdoo wrote: So if some British dude chopped a bunch of people's heads off in the US, but managed to get back to England, he'd be fine? That probably depends on how wealthy he is. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 11 2018 06:58 Mohdoo wrote: So if some British dude chopped a bunch of people's heads off in the US, but managed to get back to England, he'd be fine? We would just charge him with murder and ask the UK to hand him over. The UK, being an ally with an extradition treaty, would likely do it if the case was strong. The ICC wouldn’t be involved. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On September 10 2018 19:26 Plansix wrote: I don’t know why everyone is so focused on FDR when the 50s and 60s is when the US crushed it economically while having a nice high tax rate. And we made all these nice social programs that have helped us deal with poverty. Sure that's true, and I usually add Ike and LBJ (as I have elsewhere in the thread), it's that FDR is my favorite and started the progressive domestic policies of the era. I also just really love his "I welcome their hatred" speech of '36 too. :D Edit: Also keep in mind that we were on the gold standard (aside from when FDR temporarily took us off of it during WW2) until '71 and pay-go was necessary at that time due to having to defend gold reserves. Any new spending that wasn't offset would devalue the currency because it was pegged and convertible to an amount of gold. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
| ||
| ||
