|
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 September 12 2018 04:13 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 03:15 Doodsmack wrote:On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Strictly from the standpoint of checking trumps amorality and adolescent impulses, we lucked out by having people resisting that from within the administration. If they weren't willing to do that, the child that's in the white house could do real damage. Apart from the policies they're implementing, these people are protecting us in one area at least. if the author had any convictions or actually believed what they wrote, writing an anonymous essay isn’t the right thing to do, or something imo that should even be celebrated. the person should quit and testify to congress to begin the impeachment. instead, they stoke the flame of #resist obstructionism and allegedly keep a president they don’t believe is fit for the job in the job by protecting him from his alleged larger failures. there’s no praise earned here. short of signing their name, it’s barely ‘hey notice me!’ cry for attention. to say it’s the least one can do would be giving too much credit.
Maybe I am turning into a conspiracy theorist, but could it have an element og smoke an mirrors, trying to distract from the corrupt process in the senate for their SCOTUS nominer? The DEM senators seemed to have some very strong points that could hurt GOP severely in the upcoming elections...
|
so basically these people are allowing things to be literally as bad as possible short of causing a war or recession outright.
i'm not sure that's deserving of any kudos, really.
|
On September 12 2018 05:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
so basically these people are allowing things to be literally as bad as possible short of causing a war or recession outright.
i'm not sure that's deserving of any kudos, really.
Pretty much. The dumpster fire rages, but does not escape the dumpster. They don’t want to put it out and are going to make sure no one else does.
|
On September 12 2018 05:27 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2018 03:15 Doodsmack wrote:On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Strictly from the standpoint of checking trumps amorality and adolescent impulses, we lucked out by having people resisting that from within the administration. If they weren't willing to do that, the child that's in the white house could do real damage. Apart from the policies they're implementing, these people are protecting us in one area at least. My guy, we are locking children up and putting them on display at the border. The damage is being done, just not to anyone with political power(voters). These people in the administration stopping Trump are just avoiding him doing something that would get them all removed from power, nothing more. You can certainly say that Ttump policy is doing damage, but these people are preventing a more catastrophic kind of damage (that, as you say, would get them removed from power). So long as trump is going to be in office, we need people on the inside keeping him in check. The alternative of not having those people is much worse. The mans first reaction to the collapse of the twin towers was that his building was now the tallest. He is amoral.
perhaps; it's always hard to tell these things. it's also possible these people are simply causing more damage, by leaving trump in to cause some damage.
it's possible that the net effect of the long term continuing damage is worse than the short term catastrophic damage (which gets them removed) that would otherwise occur.
maybe all these people are doing is leaving a wound to fester rather than doing the surgery to properly clean/remove it.
and from what I've seen these people have already allowed massive damage to occur to the country, so I see no reason to give them any excuses/outs/justifications/credit.
|
On September 12 2018 03:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
That op-ed is a shining example of the feckless conservative that wants political victories, but doesn’t want any of the consequences for those political victories. They want massive tax cuts and reduction of entitlements, but don’t want to be told that those cuts are hurting the poor people who rely on them. They want the conservative court, but don’t want to be seen as responsible if the federal government’s ability to regulate industries is gutted by that court.
They want to be seen as Americans who serve their country by limiting the negative influences of Trump, while also benefiting from Trump’s time in the White House. They fear Trumps impact on the country, but not enough to stop him or join the people opposing his administration. Not even enough to sign their name. The end of the op-ed is the crown, where they say we should all come together as Americans after they get everything they want out of this abusive administration.
I said it before, but Steven Miller signs his name to his racist bullshit. At least he has the courage of his shitty convictions. The NYT clown isn’t even that. Yes, and liberals should be supporting Trump for his protection of entitlements (probably expansion), but they're too busy de-legitimizing his presidency and pursuing anti-democratic routes for taking him down (or making him impotent) before 2020. So there's that. Conservatives always get vilified over cuts. It's the same emotional appeal throughout the decades, some strains going back to Goldwater Era, others even farther. The fact remains that the government spends more than it takes in, and past government welfare programs are unsustainable, as said by the very same agencies running them for ages. Yet, any attempts at reform of funding for the sake of actually having money to spend on the elderly and poor is met by the same brainless emotional appeals that like throwing money at problems and raising taxes and everyone to pay for the endeavor.
I'll give you that Trump isn't Paul Ryan.
It is certainly no fact that entitlement spending is unsustainable. Anyone saying this are either neoclassical economist hacks, or have something to gain by reducing federal spending and filling the spending gap with bank money. And don't get me started on how "brainless" it is to eliminate these automatic stabilizers and what the effects would be during the next downturn. Cutting spending in one area or program has absolutely no effect whatsoever on spending on another. The federal government neither has, nor does not have dollars. They create them every time it spends and deletes it through taxes. The real issue is a misunderstanding of operational realities (e.g. raising taxes to "pay for" programs, like you said). You can also look to various testimony of Greenspan's under oath to see that it isn't true, and he's not exactly a hippie leftist.
On September 11 2018 21:01 kollin wrote:
The whole debate over market socialism vs 'Venezuelan style' socialism vs whatever is far too focused on use of language lol. Modern proponents of market socialism are ideological Keynesians with updated economic policies for globalised, post-industrial countries. Socialism as it's used is as much an indicator by whoever is using it that they're broadly opposed to neoliberalism, and probably hold certain principles that inform their political positions. Keynes described himself as a Bolshevik occasionally, which shows the relative meaningless of self-ascribed ideological labels.
Keynes, much like FDR, wanted to save capitalism. He once said that if a class war was to break out, he would side with his people (the bourgeoisie). Most market socialists today are post-Keynesians that take some of his ideas, as well as Piketty, Abba Lerner and Marx.
|
United States41995 Posts
On September 11 2018 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2018 06:55 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: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 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?
He’d probably be tried in the UK, but if the prosecution in the US sought the death penalty they’d not turn him over.
|
On September 12 2018 21:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2018 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 11 2018 06:55 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: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 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? He’d probably be tried in the UK, but if the prosecution in the US sought the death penalty they’d not turn him over.
But that would be the case regardless of nationality, right? The guy could be Kenyan and would not be extradited if there were a risk of the death penalty being sought? Or is that an extra layer of protection for citizens?
Either way, it has nothing to do with the ICC.
|
On September 12 2018 21:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 21:04 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2018 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 11 2018 06:55 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: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 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? He’d probably be tried in the UK, but if the prosecution in the US sought the death penalty they’d not turn him over. But that would be the case regardless of nationality, right? The guy could be Kenyan and would not be extradited if there were a risk of the death penalty being sought? Or is that an extra layer of protection for citizens? Either way, it has nothing to do with the ICC.
I don't think it would even be mandatory for the UK to refuse. I would imagine if the crime was bad enough they might wave the requirement to wave the death penalty for extradition.
But I'm sure that this is a nation by nation thing with the aforementioned extradition treaties. I'm fairly sure there are some African countries that tried George W Bush that requested him to be brought over but good luck on that.
The ICC only has the teeth that the nations are willing to surrender their sovereignty for. It would take significant international pressure for it to get anyone whos remotely accepted in their home country.
|
The ICC is mostly used to charge war criminals from less developed countries with non-functioning legal systems. It isn’t really that concerned with sovereignty, but also doesn’t have the ability to force nations like the US, UK or China to turn over anyone.
All that being said, I don’t know why we are picking a fight with it unless we did some really terrible shit in Afghanistan we don’t want anyone looking into. Which sounds like something the US would do.
|
|
|
On September 12 2018 23:12 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2018 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2018 21:04 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2018 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 11 2018 06:55 Plansix wrote:On September 11 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: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 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? He’d probably be tried in the UK, but if the prosecution in the US sought the death penalty they’d not turn him over. But that would be the case regardless of nationality, right? The guy could be Kenyan and would not be extradited if there were a risk of the death penalty being sought? Or is that an extra layer of protection for citizens? Either way, it has nothing to do with the ICC. I don't think it would even be mandatory for the UK to refuse. I would imagine if the crime was bad enough they might wave the requirement to wave the death penalty for extradition. But I'm sure that this is a nation by nation thing with the aforementioned extradition treaties. I'm fairly sure there are some African countries that tried George W Bush that requested him to be brought over but good luck on that. The ICC only has the teeth that the nations are willing to surrender their sovereignty for. It would take significant international pressure for it to get anyone whos remotely accepted in their home country.
I think as it is the UK would be obliged to refuse to extradite someone if they thought their human rights would be abused. This is a part of EU law under the ECJ. I'm not sure whether the death penalty is included in this, but it would definitely apply if someone was going to end up in Guantanamo or something.
There have been some high profile cases involving this problem, where Theresa May (when she was home secretary) ended up being humiliated by the ECJ after an extremely long and expensive legal battle to try and deport some extremists to Libya.
|
It's not related to the ECJ or the EU, but to the European Convention on Human Rights. It's an important difference because the obligation applies not only to EU members but also to other European signatories like Russia and Turkey.
|
The White House is taking funding from money strapped FEMA and using it to fund its child abuse camps. They say the funding is for beds for adults, but the child abuse centers is why they didn’t have money for the adult beds. ICE’s complete lack planning of the family separation program has left the DOJ and ICE in a lurch, because they don’t have the budget to handle it and won’t get it from congress. So instead they are taking money that would be use for FEMA and shifting it to ICE, which congress would normally flip their shit about.
One Democratic candidate said yesterday that these sorts of abuses would be the focus of the House if the Democrats took over. The line on the campaign trail is “oversight” rather than investigating any of the scandals Trump has created for himself.
Newly revealed documents show the Trump administration took nearly $10 million away from FEMA and other federal agencies to apparently pay for immigration detention centers. A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, the agency which FEMA is a part of, said under no circumstances was any disaster relief funding transferred from FEMA to immigration enforcement efforts.
CBS News' Jeff Pegues reports the money in question was transferred back in August to ICE. A source at DHS tells Pegues the funds were transferred to ICE for adult detention beds, not to house children. The funds were transferred from FEMA's operational account at FEMA headquarters.
Over the last year there have been questions about whether FEMA's resources are stretched thin as it responds to hurricanes and that's why that nearly $10 million is getting a lot of attention, Pegues reports. Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon who called the transfer a "scandal," first made the budget adjustment documents public.
More than $4 million of the funds from FEMA are listed as "response and recovery" or "preparedness and protection" in the request. But the document says "mission impact is minimized as FEMA will curtail training, travel, public engagement sessions, IT security support and infrastructure maintenance."
The 40-page report also says that without the transfer of funds "ICE will not be able to fulfill its adult detention requirements" this year.
In their response Wednesday morning, a spokesman for DHS said these funds cut from FEMA were from routine operating expenses, and could not have been used for hurricane response. DHS also says that under no circumstances was any disaster relief funding transferred from FEMA to immigration enforcement efforts.
Source
|
On September 13 2018 00:49 Sent. wrote:
It's not related to the ECJ or the EU, but to the European Convention on Human Rights. It's an important difference because the obligation applies not only to EU members but also to other European signatories like Russia and Turkey.
You're right, my mistake.
|
I am curious if anyone agrees with this move to remove money from FEMA and give it to ICE. How in the world someone thinks to do this as soon as a hurricane is about to shit all over NC is beyond me.
|
On September 13 2018 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:
I am curious if anyone agrees with this move to remove money from FEMA and give it to ICE. How in the world someone thinks to do this as soon as a hurricane is about to shit all over NC is beyond me.
Most of us here don't want another cent going to ICE, completely ignoring where that money comes from.
|
Norway28560 Posts
well I mean only 3k people died in puerto rico and that hurricane was handled the best any hurricane has ever been handled, it was amazing how well it was handled. everyone says it was the best handling of any hurricane ever.
|
On September 13 2018 01:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
well I mean only 3k people died in puerto rico and that hurricane was handled the best any hurricane has ever been handled, it was amazing how well it was handled. everyone says it was the best handling of any hurricane ever.
That is why the 10 million isn’t necessary for FEMA, Trump has made sure that fewer than 3000 will die in this upcoming hurricane.
|
On September 13 2018 01:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
well I mean only 3k people died in puerto rico and that hurricane was handled the best any hurricane has ever been handled, it was amazing how well it was handled. everyone says it was the best handling of any hurricane ever.
Hey, if genocide is your goal then it was an unmitigated success!
Worst part is the Puerto Ricans themselves barely have any channels to voice their disapprovement. Taxation without representation is apparently only a thing if you're living on the mainland.
On September 13 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2018 01:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
well I mean only 3k people died in puerto rico and that hurricane was handled the best any hurricane has ever been handled, it was amazing how well it was handled. everyone says it was the best handling of any hurricane ever. That is why the 10 million isn’t necessary for FEMA, Trump has made sure that fewer than 3000 will die in this upcoming hurricane.
So..2999?
And his approval ratings are probably going to skyrocket again from a few strolls on the beach after the hurricane.
|
Interesting choice of words from Eric trump here. Apparently Woodward isn't Jewish, which would cement the case that this is antisemitic. As it stands he merely used the Israeli currency to say someone was looking to make money. Trump supporters will likely say "shekels is a word in the dictionary with valid meanings, therefore this wasn't a dog whistle." The other possibility is that the apple hasn't fallen far from Donald "Sheriffs Star / Sneaky Dianne Feinstein" Trump's tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
