|
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 |
White House reporters are more useful for the information they obtain off camera. On camera there is only so much they can get out of the president/press secretary. And some of them suck.
Edit: They can’t interrupt the president or stop him. It’s his briefing room.
|
She flew 3000 miles to Maryland for the polygraph in August.What changed in a month?
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/23chqwfvxmo11.png)
|
He is so cringy to hear speak. What an embarrassment.
|
On September 27 2018 06:34 Slaughter wrote:
He is so cringy to hear speak. What an embarrassment.
Millions of people are proud of what we are listening to. That is what happens when tribalism takes over.
|
On September 27 2018 06:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:She flew 3000 miles to Maryland for the polygraph in August.What changed in a month?
The price of flights? The being doxed and the death threats? I think its the death threats and fleeing her home. That likely the big difference.
Edit: Also, how do we know she flew there?
|
United States12190 Posts
I'm not sure what was my favorite part up till now; the time he interrupted a female reporter multiple times and told her to sit down while he ignored her question, the part where he said Dems would vote against George Washington because they would bring rape allegations against him, or the part where he bragged about the Chinese President(iirc?) saying he has a big brain. Tough choice.
Edit: I had to turn it off. I just cant take anymore...listening to him speak for this long gives me a headache. I feel dumber for having listened to this press conference.
|
On September 27 2018 05:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 04:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 03:58 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 03:32 m4ini wrote:
I still am not entirely sure how "republicans" here can simply straight faced say that these women are planted assassins by democrats, trying to complete their immoral "hit" on Kavanaugh.
Not understanding that these women also have something to lose. I'd like Danglars etc to explicitly and unmistakably make clear that they are convinced that these three women are liars. And why it isn't possible to investigate the claims properly, but have to be ignored so he can be confirmed. Why beat around the bush? It's obnoxiously evident that you do, and i understand that beating around the bush and trying to point at hillary (or something another democrat did at some point in the US history) is the common defense, but let it hear clear and proud. Be a "man" and make clear that these women are lying. Because there's no "grey". Either you think it should be investigated, or you think it shouldn't be investigated - the latter being equal to calling them liars, so just do it directly. In regards to "it's so long ago, who gives a shit" - might want to call 999-JAILBEHERE and ask for Bill Cosby.
Sidenote, i loved reading that "conservative" ranting about UK free speech laws, when 99% of republicans were moronically screeching for jail sentences for people who burned the US flag. Including every single one here. No to mention they are CURRENTLY up in arms about football players not standing for the anthem. Free speech to many means my speech should be free, others with dissenting opinions need to shut up. I'm down with free speech, but I do think that hate speech should be restricted. It being free speech while being an employee at a company doesn't give you protection for said free speech. That company can decide to not support your views but that doesn't mean that people are against your right to speech. My point was that the same people calling down the UK were the same people supporting the NFL in banning kneeling. In fact they were asking for it. They are also the same people that chased Howard Stern off terrestrial radio for saying awful words that may pollute the minds of the youths such as penis. Or talking about lesbians. The hypocrisy of American politics is at a all time high. And everyone is ready to die on whatever hill the current event is and what there side wants. Some of this shit shouldn't be about red or blue it should be about whats right. And my point was that nothing you said about the NFL kneeling situation was about free speech. The president demanded something and the NFL didn't give it to them. At most they'd get "fined" if they kneeled. Howard Stern was a shock jock that took it to the next level and thats how he made his money. People weren't happy with that so they complained to the company . None of these things involved the government punishing people for their speech. Its the same as the google employee who complained that the company was hireing less qualified women and minority candidates in order to achive a more diversified workforce. He wasn't fired for his free speech the same as howard stern wasn't fired for free speech the same as people didn't hire kapernick (also because kap wans't good enough for the money and voided the last year of his contract in evidence). Most of what you say here is comple BS. But I'll stick to the Howard Stern. He was never fired he moved on with his legions of fans to Satellite radio and legitimized the medium. It had under 500k subscribers now it has 30 million, much can be attributed to Howard and he has made 100's of millions off it. Never fired, he left because he got sick of getting fined for the 8 dirty words and other things that the FCC would charge him with. There was a letter writing campaign against him, funded by evangelical churches. He was shocking, because he dared to talk about things that were not "proper" for the radio. Like his penis, masturbation, homosexuality and so on. Interestingly enough once he no longer was fighting with the FCC and can do what ever he likes, his shows are much calmer. And what people thought of as shocking in the 80's is common now. I'm not sure why you would make comments on something you clearly know very little about as if it is fact. You are more or less spouting stereotypes from the 80's.
Nothing about what you said has anything to do with free speech. In the entirety of your post It described how everyones free speech was expressed and respected. If anything Howard stern benefited from the whole situation. You don't even pretend to try to explain how anything you posted involves free speech. I didn't even say he was fired. You're so lost in your own narrative you fail to connect what you're saying with the basic argument you're trying to make.
If you want to get on a bent about the FCC and what they do to regulate the landscape thats a completely different discussion.
|
The George Washington comment bothers me to my core and is at the same time hysterical.
Do the Democrats travel back in time to vote in the first election? Women and black folk can't vote, so that is a large chunk of the part that can't participate. Also, there were so many voting restrictions back then that it is unlikely that any of the currently elected senators or house members would be able to vote. And people made up some wild shit about candidates in the past. I'm sure everyone knows Jefferson told a paper that John Adams was a hermaphrodite when they were running for president. Sexual assault claims were no big thing.
Is Washington transported to modern day? He would have a real problem with all this black people in congress. And all this congress. And planes would likely freak him out real bad too. Cars would fuck up his jam. And he would be real short, kindly smelly and seem generally unhealthy by modern standards. I'm not sure he is election material in the year of our lord 2018.
|
On September 27 2018 07:05 Plansix wrote:
The George Washington comment bothers me to my core and is at the same time hysterical.
Do the Democrats travel back in time to vote in the first election? Women and black folk can't vote, so that is a large chunk of the part that can't participate. Also, there were so many voting restrictions back then that it is unlikely that any of the currently elected senators or house members would be able to vote. And people made up some wild shit about candidates in the past. I'm sure everyone knows Jefferson told a paper that John Adams was a hermaphrodite when they were running for president. Sexual assault claims were no big thing.
Is Washington transported to modern day? He would have a real problem with all this black people in congress. And all this congress. And planes would likely freak him out real bad too. Cars would fuck up his jam. And he would be real short, kindly smelly and seem generally unhealthy by modern standards. I'm not sure he is election material in the year of our lord 2018.
I think the core of the argument is somewhat the same as what many conservatives feel regarding figures of authority and whatnot. The whole idea of "no one is perfect, but my leader is glorious and I must support him or else I don't support myself" is shining pretty brightly here.
|
On September 27 2018 07:05 Plansix wrote:
The George Washington comment bothers me to my core and is at the same time hysterical.
Do the Democrats travel back in time to vote in the first election? Women and black folk can't vote, so that is a large chunk of the part that can't participate. Also, there were so many voting restrictions back then that it is unlikely that any of the currently elected senators or house members would be able to vote. And people made up some wild shit about candidates in the past. I'm sure everyone knows Jefferson told a paper that John Adams was a hermaphrodite when they were running for president. Sexual assault claims were no big thing.
Is Washington transported to modern day? He would have a real problem with all this black people in congress. And all this congress. And planes would likely freak him out real bad too. Cars would fuck up his jam. And he would be real short, kindly smelly and seem generally unhealthy by modern standards. I'm not sure he is election material in the year of our lord 2018.
George was a little over 6 feet tall, so he'd do ok in that regard.
|
|
|
On September 27 2018 07:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 07:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 05:09 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 04:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 03:58 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 03:32 m4ini wrote:
I still am not entirely sure how "republicans" here can simply straight faced say that these women are planted assassins by democrats, trying to complete their immoral "hit" on Kavanaugh.
Not understanding that these women also have something to lose. I'd like Danglars etc to explicitly and unmistakably make clear that they are convinced that these three women are liars. And why it isn't possible to investigate the claims properly, but have to be ignored so he can be confirmed. Why beat around the bush? It's obnoxiously evident that you do, and i understand that beating around the bush and trying to point at hillary (or something another democrat did at some point in the US history) is the common defense, but let it hear clear and proud. Be a "man" and make clear that these women are lying. Because there's no "grey". Either you think it should be investigated, or you think it shouldn't be investigated - the latter being equal to calling them liars, so just do it directly. In regards to "it's so long ago, who gives a shit" - might want to call 999-JAILBEHERE and ask for Bill Cosby.
Sidenote, i loved reading that "conservative" ranting about UK free speech laws, when 99% of republicans were moronically screeching for jail sentences for people who burned the US flag. Including every single one here. No to mention they are CURRENTLY up in arms about football players not standing for the anthem. Free speech to many means my speech should be free, others with dissenting opinions need to shut up. I'm down with free speech, but I do think that hate speech should be restricted. It being free speech while being an employee at a company doesn't give you protection for said free speech. That company can decide to not support your views but that doesn't mean that people are against your right to speech. My point was that the same people calling down the UK were the same people supporting the NFL in banning kneeling. In fact they were asking for it. They are also the same people that chased Howard Stern off terrestrial radio for saying awful words that may pollute the minds of the youths such as penis. Or talking about lesbians. The hypocrisy of American politics is at a all time high. And everyone is ready to die on whatever hill the current event is and what there side wants. Some of this shit shouldn't be about red or blue it should be about whats right. And my point was that nothing you said about the NFL kneeling situation was about free speech. The president demanded something and the NFL didn't give it to them. At most they'd get "fined" if they kneeled. Howard Stern was a shock jock that took it to the next level and thats how he made his money. People weren't happy with that so they complained to the company . None of these things involved the government punishing people for their speech. Its the same as the google employee who complained that the company was hireing less qualified women and minority candidates in order to achive a more diversified workforce. He wasn't fired for his free speech the same as howard stern wasn't fired for free speech the same as people didn't hire kapernick (also because kap wans't good enough for the money and voided the last year of his contract in evidence). Most of what you say here is comple BS. But I'll stick to the Howard Stern. He was never fired he moved on with his legions of fans to Satellite radio and legitimized the medium. It had under 500k subscribers now it has 30 million, much can be attributed to Howard and he has made 100's of millions off it. Never fired, he left because he got sick of getting fined for the 8 dirty words and other things that the FCC would charge him with. There was a letter writing campaign against him, funded by evangelical churches. He was shocking, because he dared to talk about things that were not "proper" for the radio. Like his penis, masturbation, homosexuality and so on. Interestingly enough once he no longer was fighting with the FCC and can do what ever he likes, his shows are much calmer. And what people thought of as shocking in the 80's is common now. I'm not sure why you would make comments on something you clearly know very little about as if it is fact. You are more or less spouting stereotypes from the 80's. Nothing about what you said has anything to do with free speech. In the entirety of your post It described how everyones free speech was expressed and respected. If anything Howard stern benefited from the whole situation. You don't even pretend to try to explain how anything you posted involves free speech. I didn't even say he was fired. You're so lost in your own narrative you fail to connect what you're saying with the basic argument you're trying to make. If you want to get on a bent about the FCC and what they do to regulate the landscape thats a completely different discussion. You do know that the FCC is the Federal Communications Commission and is run by the Federal Government right? It has a freaking .gov website. If you don't think a government organization telling you what you can and can't say and fining you and pulling your signal if you don't follow those rules is about free speech I don't even know. Like if the FCC fined anyone who talked about Christianity on the radio and removed them from the air waves when they did, you don't think that would be an attack on free speech?
I know what the FCC is do you know what the FCC is and why it exists? It doesn't have anything to do with the things we we're talking before. Do you want this to turn into a thing with the FCC? If you think the two are connected then connect why you think people having an issue with a protest coincides with a government agency regulating the airwaves on behalf of the public. Do you want it to include a philosophical argument on what "the public ownership of the airwaves" means in regards to the FCC in connection with said public's objection to things they see on the TV that they object to and don't want on "their airwaves"?
I'm not interested in trying to constantly make your arguments for you so if you want to just keep tangentially ranting about things then I'm not going to continue.
|
And another one. Apparently this incident occurred in 1998 so a bit more recent than the others. Republicans have already questioned Kavanaugh about this and he's denied the accusations.
|
I changed my mind. Yeah. Put him on the court with 51 Republican votes. Dems need to turn it way down on KAVANAUGH for the next few days so we can impeach him later. Just make sure they get each every one of his preposterous denials on record and under oath. Republicans have 51 votes for a Republican justice, better someone we can toss later than someone like GORSUCH who doesn't have a swarm of sexual assault accusations.
|
|
|
United States43868 Posts
On September 27 2018 07:05 Plansix wrote:
The George Washington comment bothers me to my core and is at the same time hysterical.
Do the Democrats travel back in time to vote in the first election? Women and black folk can't vote, so that is a large chunk of the part that can't participate. Also, there were so many voting restrictions back then that it is unlikely that any of the currently elected senators or house members would be able to vote. And people made up some wild shit about candidates in the past. I'm sure everyone knows Jefferson told a paper that John Adams was a hermaphrodite when they were running for president. Sexual assault claims were no big thing.
Is Washington transported to modern day? He would have a real problem with all this black people in congress. And all this congress. And planes would likely freak him out real bad too. Cars would fuck up his jam. And he would be real short, kindly smelly and seem generally unhealthy by modern standards. I'm not sure he is election material in the year of our lord 2018.
For what it’s worth Jefferson did rape his child slaves so we’re covered on whether he should be on the SCOTUS in 2018.
|
On September 27 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 07:48 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 07:37 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 07:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 05:09 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 04:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 04:29 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 03:58 Sermokala wrote:On September 27 2018 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 03:32 m4ini wrote:
I still am not entirely sure how "republicans" here can simply straight faced say that these women are planted assassins by democrats, trying to complete their immoral "hit" on Kavanaugh.
Not understanding that these women also have something to lose. I'd like Danglars etc to explicitly and unmistakably make clear that they are convinced that these three women are liars. And why it isn't possible to investigate the claims properly, but have to be ignored so he can be confirmed. Why beat around the bush? It's obnoxiously evident that you do, and i understand that beating around the bush and trying to point at hillary (or something another democrat did at some point in the US history) is the common defense, but let it hear clear and proud. Be a "man" and make clear that these women are lying. Because there's no "grey". Either you think it should be investigated, or you think it shouldn't be investigated - the latter being equal to calling them liars, so just do it directly. In regards to "it's so long ago, who gives a shit" - might want to call 999-JAILBEHERE and ask for Bill Cosby.
Sidenote, i loved reading that "conservative" ranting about UK free speech laws, when 99% of republicans were moronically screeching for jail sentences for people who burned the US flag. Including every single one here. No to mention they are CURRENTLY up in arms about football players not standing for the anthem. Free speech to many means my speech should be free, others with dissenting opinions need to shut up. I'm down with free speech, but I do think that hate speech should be restricted. It being free speech while being an employee at a company doesn't give you protection for said free speech. That company can decide to not support your views but that doesn't mean that people are against your right to speech. My point was that the same people calling down the UK were the same people supporting the NFL in banning kneeling. In fact they were asking for it. They are also the same people that chased Howard Stern off terrestrial radio for saying awful words that may pollute the minds of the youths such as penis. Or talking about lesbians. The hypocrisy of American politics is at a all time high. And everyone is ready to die on whatever hill the current event is and what there side wants. Some of this shit shouldn't be about red or blue it should be about whats right. And my point was that nothing you said about the NFL kneeling situation was about free speech. The president demanded something and the NFL didn't give it to them. At most they'd get "fined" if they kneeled. Howard Stern was a shock jock that took it to the next level and thats how he made his money. People weren't happy with that so they complained to the company . None of these things involved the government punishing people for their speech. Its the same as the google employee who complained that the company was hireing less qualified women and minority candidates in order to achive a more diversified workforce. He wasn't fired for his free speech the same as howard stern wasn't fired for free speech the same as people didn't hire kapernick (also because kap wans't good enough for the money and voided the last year of his contract in evidence). Most of what you say here is comple BS. But I'll stick to the Howard Stern. He was never fired he moved on with his legions of fans to Satellite radio and legitimized the medium. It had under 500k subscribers now it has 30 million, much can be attributed to Howard and he has made 100's of millions off it. Never fired, he left because he got sick of getting fined for the 8 dirty words and other things that the FCC would charge him with. There was a letter writing campaign against him, funded by evangelical churches. He was shocking, because he dared to talk about things that were not "proper" for the radio. Like his penis, masturbation, homosexuality and so on. Interestingly enough once he no longer was fighting with the FCC and can do what ever he likes, his shows are much calmer. And what people thought of as shocking in the 80's is common now. I'm not sure why you would make comments on something you clearly know very little about as if it is fact. You are more or less spouting stereotypes from the 80's. Nothing about what you said has anything to do with free speech. In the entirety of your post It described how everyones free speech was expressed and respected. If anything Howard stern benefited from the whole situation. You don't even pretend to try to explain how anything you posted involves free speech. I didn't even say he was fired. You're so lost in your own narrative you fail to connect what you're saying with the basic argument you're trying to make. If you want to get on a bent about the FCC and what they do to regulate the landscape thats a completely different discussion. You do know that the FCC is the Federal Communications Commission and is run by the Federal Government right? It has a freaking .gov website. If you don't think a government organization telling you what you can and can't say and fining you and pulling your signal if you don't follow those rules is about free speech I don't even know. Like if the FCC fined anyone who talked about Christianity on the radio and removed them from the air waves when they did, you don't think that would be an attack on free speech? I know what the FCC is do you know what the FCC is and why it exists? It doesn't have anything to do with the things we we're talking before. Do you want this to turn into a thing with the FCC? If you think the two are connected then connect why you think people having an issue with a protest coincides with a government agency regulating the airwaves on behalf of the public. Do you want it to include a philosophical argument on what "the public ownership of the airwaves" means in regards to the FCC in connection with said public's objection to things they see on the TV that they object to and don't want on "their airwaves"? I'm not interested in trying to constantly make your arguments for you so if you want to just keep tangentially ranting about things then I'm not going to continue. Nope you have made it clear, to you its only an attack on free speech if it against what you believe.
When people in the future or in the past tell you your arguing in bad faith and you're confused. Remember this post and it'll explain it for you.
|
United States12190 Posts
On September 27 2018 07:50 ticklishmusic wrote:And another one. Apparently this incident occurred in 1998 so a bit more recent than the others. Republicans have already questioned Kavanaugh about this and he's denied the accusations. https://twitter.com/MikeDelMoro/status/1045080880581136385
Witnesses to boot. I'll wait to see what the accuser says publicly. If nothing then it will just be lost in this busy news cycle.
Its worth mentioning that this new one continues to corroborate the belief that Kavanaugh is a really violent, aggressive, and mean drunk.
|
On September 27 2018 07:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 07:05 Plansix wrote:
The George Washington comment bothers me to my core and is at the same time hysterical.
Do the Democrats travel back in time to vote in the first election? Women and black folk can't vote, so that is a large chunk of the part that can't participate. Also, there were so many voting restrictions back then that it is unlikely that any of the currently elected senators or house members would be able to vote. And people made up some wild shit about candidates in the past. I'm sure everyone knows Jefferson told a paper that John Adams was a hermaphrodite when they were running for president. Sexual assault claims were no big thing.
Is Washington transported to modern day? He would have a real problem with all this black people in congress. And all this congress. And planes would likely freak him out real bad too. Cars would fuck up his jam. And he would be real short, kindly smelly and seem generally unhealthy by modern standards. I'm not sure he is election material in the year of our lord 2018. George was a little over 6 feet tall, so he'd do ok in that regard.
I was thinking of Madison for some unknown reason.
|
Even Jared Kushner had a WTF look on his face during that presser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
