US Politics Mega-thread - Page 696
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 | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
On September 15 2018 00:11 micronesia wrote: I wasn't paying close attention to the news coverage when the big storm hit Puerto Rico, but I have seen headlines arguing about how many people died. It is obviously becoming a politicized issue, driven completely by the left to make the current administration look bad. How could one storm or hurricane kill thousands of people? The president's explanation makes sense to me: There have been thousands of deaths attributed to the hurricane that would have happened anyway, which isn't the government's fault. -A lot of people, probably. Do you seriously believe this? Or are you hypothesizing other peoples' thought process. Because there are plenty of effects of a storm that aren't instant death due to a wall falling over and crushing you, which can lead to a far slower/later death yet are directly attributable to the damage from the storm. Most notably disease due to unsanitary conditions (caused by houses and infrastructure blowing away and flooding). | ||
![]()
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On September 15 2018 00:21 Acrofales wrote: Do you seriously believe this? Or are you hypothesizing other peoples' thought process. Because there are plenty of effects of a storm that aren't instant death due to a wall falling over and crushing you, which can lead to a far slower/later death yet are directly attributable to the damage from the storm. Most notably disease due to unsanitary conditions (caused by houses and infrastructure blowing away and flooding). Yes I'm describing a likely common thought process that can explain why a lot of folks would believe claims that the number of hurricane deaths are horribly overblown. I understand the concepts you are explaining but many people do not. They are not incapable of understanding it (in most cases), but it isn't being forced-fed to them and they aren't seeking it out either. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 15 2018 00:11 micronesia wrote: I wasn't paying close attention to the news coverage when the big storm hit Puerto Rico, but I have seen headlines arguing about how many people died. It is obviously becoming a politicized issue, driven completely by the left to make the current administration look bad. How could one storm or hurricane kill thousands of people? The president's explanation makes sense to me: There have been thousands of deaths attributed to the hurricane that would have happened anyway, which isn't the government's fault. -A lot of people, probably. You’re being unnecessarily dour and hyperbolic. I gather you have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens, but accusing them of dismissing how many people died (just because the President did) is a step too far. You’re just going to make more people think the leftists call Trump supporters gullible idiots all the time and hate their countrymen, having given up on being part of one nation. (Since these kind of demeaning takes are omnipresent on cable news, you’re also going to be lumped into a mindless drone taking your marching orders from the liberal news media) | ||
brian
United States9610 Posts
On September 15 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote: You’re being unnecessarily dour and hyperbolic. I gather you have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens, but accusing them of dismissing how many people died (just because the President did) is a step too far. You’re just going to make more people think the leftists call Trump supporters gullible idiots all the time and hate their countrymen, having given up on being part of one nation. (Since these kind of demeaning takes are omnipresent on cable news, you’re also going to be lumped into a mindless drone taking your marching orders from the liberal news media) no one need look further than their favorite republican twitter account to see plenty examples of exactly what micronesia has posted. he didn’t claim every republican on earth is that stupid. but what he said is on display anywhere you look. your post reads as if it’s a fringe belief, and it is not. unless you’re implying they believe it’s a fiction for reasons other than the president said so, which i haven’t fully wrapped my head around yet, but i think it’d be worse. | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On September 15 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote: You need to take a good hard look at your own party's supporters if you really believe they are not made up of a significant portion of gullible idiots who will eat up Trumps words and actually believe him.You’re being unnecessarily dour and hyperbolic. I gather you have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens, but accusing them of dismissing how many people died (just because the President did) is a step too far. You’re just going to make more people think the leftists call Trump supporters gullible idiots all the time and hate their countrymen, having given up on being part of one nation. (Since these kind of demeaning takes are omnipresent on cable news, you’re also going to be lumped into a mindless drone taking your marching orders from the liberal news media) | ||
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
So police have tried to retroactively prove that a man who was killed by an officer was a criminal by executing a search warrant related to 'narcotics' on his house. In the context of previous blatant police crimes and how officers get away with it every single time, this is an especially cruel way to go about it. For an organization to kill a man and then try to smear him is bad enough, but when its the organization sworn to protect and serve that man, how is the community around him supposed to react to that? I don't know anything about US police/legal procedure. Is it normal to have a warrant with references to narcotics in relation to a recently deceased murder victim? Is this a smear, or just police procedure? Now KXAS reports that the day after the shooting, a Dallas Police Department investigator obtained a warrant to search Jean's apartment. The warrant, signed by 292nd District Court Judge Brandon Birmingham, says the police intended to look for "any contraband, such as narcotics," that could "constitute[e] evidence of a criminal offense." The warrant seems to suggest police had reason to believe some sort of illegal substance was present at Jean's residence. When asked whether such probable cause existed, a Dallas police spokesperson referred Reason to the Texas Rangers, who took over the investigation soon after the shooting. A Texas Rangers spokesperson, in turn, referred Reason to the Dallas County District Attorney's Office. A spokesperson for the district attorney said the search warrant was "fairly standard" for such a high-profile case, but added that "no specifics about the case will be released at this time to maintain the integrity of the case." So it remains unclear why the warrant referenced narcotics. According to Houston-based criminal defense attorney Mark Bennett, there doesn't appear to be any legitimate legal reason for police to include that language. But there could be a practical one. "They want to smear the guy," he speculates. "He no longer has reason to complain about the search of his place, because he's dead," he adds. https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/frfrfr | ||
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On September 15 2018 01:15 Jockmcplop wrote: https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/frfrfr I don't know anything about US police/legal procedure. Is it normal to have a warrant with references to narcotics in relation to a recently deceased murder victim? Is this a smear, or just police procedure? 100% a smear. They are trying to find something so they can go 'Look! the cop had to kill this guy in his own home after she broke in! He had drugs!!!!!' | ||
Sermokala
United States13753 Posts
On September 15 2018 01:15 Jockmcplop wrote: https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/frfrfr I don't know anything about US police/legal procedure. Is it normal to have a warrant with references to narcotics in relation to a recently deceased murder victim? Is this a smear, or just police procedure? I doubt its a smear but I don't know what else it could be. I don't think anyone is really dumb enough to try and get a search warrant the day after (especially when search warrants are a button press away most of the time) for no reason. I mean theres no way its not a crime if they back date it and theres no way it won't be found out either way once it goes to court. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 15 2018 01:35 Sermokala wrote: I doubt its a smear but I don't know what else it could be. I don't think anyone is really dumb enough to try and get a search warrant the day after (especially when search warrants are a button press away most of the time) for no reason. I mean theres no way its not a crime if they back date it and theres no way it won't be found out either way once it goes to court. It is 100% the police department trying to protect their own. They previously released a statement saying the guy "refused to obey commands" and have refused to release information on if the officer was intoxicated. The refused to respond/obey to commends line is extra funny because the response from reporters was "It's his house." | ||
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Would love to have seen Trump's reaction to the news. We may get it via twitter I suppose. Source: | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On September 14 2018 22:07 KwarK wrote: Thor’s plot has been heavily driven by one guy being heir to the throne and his siblings disagreeing with that. Birthright and lineage are absolutely relevant, it’s just black skin isn’t really the issue with suspending disbelief in Marvel movies. Except that the character of Hiemdall has no relevance to birthright and lineage. If it was Thor, who is involved in the issue of lineage, was black with white parents then a big suspension of disbelief would occur. Then again Loki looks distinctively not frost giant so who knows. ____ On September 15 2018 00:43 Danglars wrote: You’re being unnecessarily dour and hyperbolic. I gather you have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens, but accusing them of dismissing how many people died (just because the President did) is a step too far. You’re just going to make more people think the leftists call Trump supporters gullible idiots all the time and hate their countrymen, having given up on being part of one nation. (Since these kind of demeaning takes are omnipresent on cable news, you’re also going to be lumped into a mindless drone taking your marching orders from the liberal news media) Poe's law, I can't tell if Danglars is serious or not. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 15 2018 00:33 micronesia wrote: Yes I'm describing a likely common thought process that can explain why a lot of folks would believe claims that the number of hurricane deaths are horribly overblown. I understand the concepts you are explaining but many people do not. They are not incapable of understanding it (in most cases), but it isn't being forced-fed to them and they aren't seeking it out either. something about the way your first post is written makes it unclear, at least at first glance, that you're describing how some people erroneously think rather than what you believe. Not sure how to change it; maybe move the note about it being a reference to others' thoughts at the start instead of the end? with a disclaimer that you're not agreeing with it? | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 14 2018 21:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Except they were both teenagers in HS. Never mind the statute of limitations involved, neither were involved with the federal government. were you responding to me? it's not clear if you wnated me to counter-respond or if you were talking to the thread. and again, this matter has already been addressed, how come you didn't see the explanations that covered why the fbi would be involved? | ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 14 2018 15:03 Danglars wrote: The nomination process is going quite well if Feinstein’s reduced to accusing Kavanaugh of locking someone in a room when he was a teenager. I guess the line is that he made a girl feel threatened when he was young, and now he’s making all women feel threatened about abortion law now. The smear by association is nothing new; they tried the same with the papers that passed his desk from some other Bush administration figure that was misbehaving. The New Yorker reports that the allegation is basically attempted rape. He covered her mouth, attempted to force himself on her, and they turned up the music in the room so others wouldn't hear her protests. This woman first provided the letter to Feinstein in July. No doubt Kavanaugh 's supporters will now argue that the rape accuser must be lying because of x, y, and z. I just want to know why Feinstein sat on this. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It is like this group of people got into politics and didn't brother to find out what everyone else in existence was doing for the majority of their lives. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On September 15 2018 02:07 Doodsmack wrote: The New Yorker reports that the allegation is basically attempted rape. He covered her mouth, attempted to force himself on her, and they turned up the music in the room so others wouldn't hear her protests. This woman first provided the letter to Feinstein in July. No doubt Kavanaugh 's supporters will now argue that the rape accuser must be lying because of x, y, and z. I just want to know why Feinstein sat on this. And when this is eventually shown to be credible, people will talk about how rape is super common in rural communities and how women are expected to stop whining about it for the sake of social cohesion. Which is true, of course, but isn't the kind of standard I have for the supreme court. Even if we were to assume rape is somewhat common, I do not want a somewhat common man on the supreme court. | ||
| ||