EPTShe’s effective as fuck and she’s a great target for the ire of the right, allowing others to be just as liberal without the giant crosshairs or rancor towards them
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 923
| 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 | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
She’s effective as fuck and she’s a great target for the ire of the right, allowing others to be just as liberal without the giant crosshairs or rancor towards them | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
Edit awh Jimmi beat me while I was trying to be thinking off a good joke. Its oddly not the first time I've seen the IRA NRA mixup. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
I think we need a new acronym. I'm sure Putin planned this as well, the bastard. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:04 KOFgokuon wrote: Her caucus always votes the way she wants. Even during Obamacare repeal votes she didn’t have a single person break ranks She’s effective as fuck and she’s a great target for the ire of the right, allowing others to be just as liberal without the giant crosshairs or rancor towards them So that's it, what she some kinda dark knight? Thought she was qualified because nobody else wants or is doing the job. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:17 riotjune wrote: So that's it, what she some kinda dark knight? Thought she was qualified because nobody else wants or is doing the job. Shes low key also able to fundraise like no one else not just for her but for anyone she deigns to help. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:17 riotjune wrote: So that's it, what she some kinda dark knight? Thought she was qualified because nobody else wants or is doing the job. No, she is just good at getting bills passed and moving things through the chamber. The if you watched the legendary FBI agent hearings, you would see that the Republicans often don't know the rules of their own committees and simply rely on the authority of the majority to prevent things from moving forward. They repeatedly objected to actions by the democrats, only to be challenged to cite the rule that objection was based on and fail to cite it. During the Bush era, the Republican congresses were legendary for being the least productive congresses in history. They topped themselves for three years running, doing less each year. Because the politics of obstruction to gain power Newt Gingrich, slowly lost the talent set of effective legislators until they championing Paul Mother Fucking Ryan as some legislative wonder kin. Paul Ryan. When the Democrats took the House in 2006, it was like someone hit the nitro button and bills started flying through the chamber. And all the Republicans did was whine that Democrats were not letting them take part in the process. The reality was that the Republicans burned all their bridges and were bad at their jobs. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8270 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:06 plasmidghost wrote: So now that the WSJ's come out with solid evidence of Trump's involvement in the hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, what is the likelihood of him being actually indicted for these crimes? I saw one line in the article that said it may have violated campaign finance laws, so it doesn't appear to be a sure thing https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/trump-cohen-payments-women/index.html This and the article about tax evasion a few weeks back are huge findings which..won't be talked about a week from now. Everyone already knew this. Finding evidence for it isn't shocking in the least, and people in positions to do anything about it doesn't care. They know what he's about. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
PARIS (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump lashed out at French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday, saying it was “very insulting” for him to suggest Europe should create its own army to protect itself from potential adversaries. [...] “Very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidizes greatly,” Trump added, returning to his repeated demand that European nations do more to help fund the Western alliance. source: www.reuters.com isn't that exactly what Trump is asking for? More EU spending on military, right? Why is he against this lol //edit: nvm, Macron mentioned the US as a potential threat alongside Russia and China. I guess that's what ticked Trump off but still, he should be happy about that, no? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:49 Toadesstern wrote: can someone explain this for me? source: www.reuters.com isn't that exactly what Trump is asking for? More EU spending on military, right? Why is he against this lol //edit: nvm, Macron mentioned the US as a potential threat alongside Russia and China. I guess that's what ticked Trump off but still, he should be happy about that, no? No. Only Trump is allowed to think of someone else as an enemy, in Trumpworld (which he did, speaking about Europe, a while ago). And a european army isn't NATO, so the US wouldn't benefit (directly in operations) and it would probably dilute investment in NATO. Won't happen anyway, Macron is like the only one talking about that... Declaring the US among the threats is fun to me though, way to piss Trump off xD | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22463 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:45 Excludos wrote: Last I heard the NY tax authority opened an investigation as a result of the NYT article, sounds to me like the 'people in positions' are doing something about it.This and the article about tax evasion a few weeks back are huge findings which..won't be talked about a week from now. Everyone already knew this. Finding evidence for it isn't shocking in the least, and people in positions to do anything about it doesn't care. They know what he's about. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11924 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:56 Nouar wrote: No. Only Trump is allowed to think of someone else as an enemy, in Trumpworld (which he did, speaking about Europe, a while ago). And a european army isn't NATO, so the US wouldn't benefit (directly in operations) and it would probably dilute investment in NATO. Won't happen anyway, Macron is like the only one talking about that... Declaring the US among the threats is fun to me though, way to piss Trump off xD I think Trump might have a very skewed idea of what Nato is. From what i can tell from quotes like that, he seems to think (or want his base to think) that Nato is basically the US army. And that other countries pay money to Nato (and the US) for them to protect the country. But those countries skip out on their bills. It is very weird. | ||
KwarK
United States44190 Posts
On November 10 2018 08:17 Simberto wrote: I think Trump might have a very skewed idea of what Nato is. From what i can tell from quotes like that, he seems to think (or want his base to think) that Nato is basically the US army. And that other countries pay money to Nato (and the US) for them to protect the country. But those countries skip out on their bills. It is very weird. There’s a precedent for that system, the Delian League. It took about a decade to go from “instead of paying for a fleet just send us the money and we’ll protect you with our enlarged fleet” to attacking league members who wouldn’t pay their protection money. Funded the Parthenon though. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:49 Toadesstern wrote: can someone explain this for me? source: www.reuters.com isn't that exactly what Trump is asking for? More EU spending on military, right? Why is he against this lol //edit: nvm, Macron mentioned the US as a potential threat alongside Russia and China. I guess that's what ticked Trump off but still, he should be happy about that, no? The last time there was serious impetus for a unified European military force was during the Clinton adminstration. The US was equally against it then and lobbied very hard to make sure it didn't happen. Making sure there is no potential threat to the us in Europe has been the obvious geopolitical decision since 1914. NATO has always been meant as a force multipler for the US military. I guess that's why the French never quite liked it. Someone please correct me if I misremember but wasn't it adenhauer who promised degaulle after his humiliation during the sues crisis that eventually a United Europe would be their answer ? Xp. At the end of the day i find it a bit silly, US interests of those of the various European nations are aligned in almost all ways that matter. Europe, united or not, will be an ally against China, not an advesary. Bolton or whoever told Trump to be mad about this is being short sighted. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6292 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On November 10 2018 12:11 RvB wrote: But they can't push around European countries as easily when United. Always easier to deal with individual countries. Really just reminds me of the anecdote about Trump, Merkel, and trade deals needing to go through the EU. | ||
| ||
