| 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
On November 14 2018 07:14 IgnE wrote: is acosta not a yellow journalist and a clown? CNN could be considered Yellow Journalism and Acosta is a bit of a clown. But that is no reason to deny them access to the White House. But I don't really think you are implying they should be denied access. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 14 2018 07:14 IgnE wrote: is acosta not a yellow journalist and a clown? Even clowns deserve the base modicum of respect that the press corps requires to do its work. Being one of the particularly aggressive ones consistently hounded Trump during news conferences, it's impossible to not see this as retaliation. | ||
|
pmh
1402 Posts
Or is it that every reporter in the usa who would want to could get acces to the whitehouse press conferences? That can not be the case. (correct me if wrong but that seems so unlikely to me) Many reporters are already not allowed acces,the room would be to small. Democrats been so negative about everything but they only have themselves to blame. Giving away the supreme court nomination to the republicans,thereby ensuring a conservative court for probably decades to come. The one big thing Obama could do he gave away to the opposition. Not Obama himself but the democrats as a whole by accepting the nomination being taken away from them. It is almost as if they have done it on purpose,as if they want the court to be conservative. Why would any progressive still have faith in the democrats when they gave away the one they could decide to the republicans. Its impossible to understand from any perspective but maybe some of the democrats in this thread can explain the motivation for this. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 14 2018 08:55 pmh wrote: Why would trump not be able to deny accosta acces? I think he doesn't even need a reason. He does. The White House needs to have legitimate reasons to deny a security pass for a reporter. The Supreme Court has ruled on this a few times before. And the reason the White House provided is bullshit and fictional. They cannot provide access to some news outlets while completely shutting out other outlets. That violates the first amendment. And to answer the second question: the White House will credential any outlet that requests to be part of the briefing. It isn’t that interesting and isn’t with it for most news outlets. But if they want to report on the White House, they can. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22089 Posts
On November 14 2018 08:55 pmh wrote: In what reality did the Democrats 'give away' the nomination.Why would trump not be able to deny accosta acces? I think he doesn't even need a reason. Or is it that every reporter in the usa who would want to could get acces to the whitehouse press conferences? That can not be the case. (correct me if wrong but that seems so unlikely to me) Many reporters are already not allowed acces,the room would be to small. Democrats been so negative about everything but they only have themselves to blame. Giving away the supreme court nomination to the republicans,thereby ensuring a conservative court for probably decades to come. The one big thing Obama could do he gave away to the opposition. Not Obama himself but the democrats as a whole by accepting the nomination being taken away from them. It is almost as if they have done it on purpose,as if they want the court to be conservative. Why would any progressive still have faith in the democrats when they gave away the one they could decide to the republicans. Its impossible to understand from any perspective but maybe some of the democrats in this thread can explain the motivation for this. You speak like they had a choice. explain yourself please. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On November 14 2018 08:55 pmh wrote:Giving away the supreme court nomination to the republicans,thereby ensuring a conservative court for probably decades to come. The one big thing Obama could do he gave away to the opposition. Not Obama himself but the democrats as a whole by accepting the nomination being taken away from them. It is almost as if they have done it on purpose,as if they want the court to be conservative. Why would any progressive still have faith in the democrats when they gave away the one they could decide to the republicans. Its impossible to understand from any perspective but maybe some of the democrats in this thread can explain the motivation for this. What reality do you live in. Obama couldn't do shit because the Republicans had a majority in the senate. Separation of powers means he couldn't force Congress to give Merrick Garland hearings, there's literally nothing the Democrats can do if Mitch wants to obstruct the Supreme Court nomination. Literally the only thing Obama could have done was to go out of his way to put political pressure on the Republicans and, if you've noticed, is something that Obama didn't really do because of his obsession with decorum. Of course, the gloves are probably off at this point with Trump basically campaigning and holding private rallies every day of the year. That's probably going to be the new norm at this point. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4383 Posts
On November 14 2018 06:28 Plansix wrote: Because you hate the press and freedom of speech? You worship at a strong leaders feet and allow him to dictate who can bring you information? You really need to bring more to the table than this, otherwise folks are going to be left wondering why you would want the president to pick which reporters get to cover the White House. CNN can provide another less arrogant reporter. Certainly not the first time Acosta has acted like a fool https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jtvU01CM8Hs | ||
|
Introvert
United States4898 Posts
On November 14 2018 08:55 pmh wrote: Why would trump not be able to deny accosta acces? I think he doesn't even need a reason. Or is it that every reporter in the usa who would want to could get acces to the whitehouse press conferences? That can not be the case. (correct me if wrong but that seems so unlikely to me) Many reporters are already not allowed acces,the room would be to small. Democrats been so negative about everything but they only have themselves to blame. Giving away the supreme court nomination to the republicans,thereby ensuring a conservative court for probably decades to come. The one big thing Obama could do he gave away to the opposition. Not Obama himself but the democrats as a whole by accepting the nomination being taken away from them. It is almost as if they have done it on purpose,as if they want the court to be conservative. Why would any progressive still have faith in the democrats when they gave away the one they could decide to the republicans. Its impossible to understand from any perspective but maybe some of the democrats in this thread can explain the motivation for this. The clownish behavior of the Democrats hasn't even hit top gear yet, wait till the ranking clowns on these committees become chair people. They are going to remind the American people of why they had their power taken away in the first place. They also forget Trump won't always be president, only then will they understand the full weight of their stupidity. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 14 2018 10:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: CNN can provide another less arrogant reporter. Certainly not the first time Acosta has acted like a fool https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jtvU01CM8Hs Nope. The White House doesn’t get to pick its reporters. And if they are going to pulls someone security clearance, they can to it based on reality, not fiction. Edit: introvert, you know Obama isn’t in office any more? No more villain to run against. What are the Republicans going to run on? Balancing the budget? Stopping spending they approved? Border security they have let Trump botch? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43570 Posts
On November 13 2018 23:56 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Here Trump lays out his grand scheme for NATO. Pay the US, or the Germans will come for you. Or something. I don't even know. What annoys me is his blindness to why the US is in Germany (and Japan). The US isn't garrisoning these places because they're bad at war, it's doing it because they're really good at war and after WWII everyone decided it was for the best that they don't flex their muscles anymore. The problem was never that Europe couldn't defend itself, it was that when Europe militarizes the world catches fire. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4898 Posts
On November 14 2018 11:25 Plansix wrote: Nope. The White House doesn’t get to pick its reporters. And if they are going to pulls someone security clearance, they can to it based on reality, not fiction. Edit: introvert, you know Obama isn’t in office any more? No more villain to run against. What are the Republicans going to run on? Balancing the budget? Stopping spending they approved? Border security they have let Trump botch? Thank you for reinforcing my point. One day Trump (left-wing bogey man) will be gone and the two years of absurdity we are about to enjoy will come back to haunt them. I want the GOP to have an agenda, but in the meantime they are going to use their greatest asset. Democrats. I can't wait for Mueller to clear Trump of collusion only to have the Democrats start their own investigation. They'd be dumb enough to do it, too. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43570 Posts
On November 14 2018 11:40 Introvert wrote: Thank you for reinforcing my point. One day Trump (left-wing bogey man) will be gone and the two years of absurdity we are about to enjoy will come back to haunt them. I want the GOP to have an agenda, but in the meantime they are going to use their greatest asset. Democrats. I can't wait for Mueller to clear Trump of collusion only to have the Democrats start their own investigation. They'd be dumb enough to do it, too. You say that like a third of Americans don't believe Hillary killed Ben Ghazi. Now admittedly the average Democrat isn't quite as dumb as those people, but there are still a lot of dumb votes to be picked up with innuendo and endless investigations. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4898 Posts
On November 14 2018 11:45 KwarK wrote: You say that like a third of Americans don't believe Hillary killed Ben Ghazi. Now admittedly the average Democrat isn't quite as dumb as those people, but there are still a lot of dumb votes to be picked up with innuendo and endless investigations. Problem we've had months of "Mueller is great and doing a good job and super ethical and detailed!" So if he says it didn't happen the number of people inclined to believed it happened only shrinks, and only among those who already believed it. At the time of the Banghazi report Democrats thought it was great for Clinton, as was her testimony, where her best moments were repeated endlessly the exclusion of everything else. You can't build Mueller up as the guy to get it done and then backtrack when your narrative takes a hit. I mean they will try, they'll be something in there for them to hang their hat on, but anything besides actual collusion is a massive whack to the narrative. The point is though, the American people on the whole, including those who flipped the House, are not where these chair people are. As I said a few days ago, we should sit back and grab the popcorn as the new House stars like AOC try and force purple district Democrats to vote for things like cap and trade. It's going to be fun. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4898 Posts
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions". but that literally IS the whole of it. The stolen election narrative needs this. Obviously the Democrats will claim it was fruitful, but if it's primary cause, the reason it exists, turns out to be nothing, then it's a failure. no matter the spin, "DT Jr wanted to collude" isn't going to cut it, sorry. The democrats will fall back on obstruction, but again, obstruction over an event that didn't happen is a political loser. every time someone tries to spin this into a win it should be fought. every time. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On November 14 2018 12:38 Introvert wrote: but that literally IS the whole of it. The stolen election narrative needs this. Obviously the Democrats will claim it was fruitful, but if it's primary cause, the reason it exists, turns out to be nothing, then it's a failure. no matter the spin, "DT Jr wanted to collude" isn't going to cut it, sorry. The democrats will fall back on obstruction, but again, obstruction over an event that didn't happen is a political loser. every time someone tries to spin this into a win it should be fought. every time. The Democrats have already moved from that narrative ("Trump himself colluded") a long time ago, if you haven't noticed. For like the entirety of the investigation has been about whether or not his campaign colluded. We know they attempted to collude and even set up meetings to do so. What killed Clinton was the image of impropriety, the perception that you couldn't trust her even if you couldn't put a finger on why. In all seriousness, the Democrats aren't even really planning to set up investigations into possible Russia collusion connections. There's a whole laundry list of ethics and corruption issues to investigate that hit a lot closer to home like why Ben Carson spent $31,000 on a personal dining table set and why no one did anything about it. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions". I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed? | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On November 14 2018 12:45 plasmidghost wrote: I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed? Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet: Then into this tweet: I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It’s never the crime, it’s the cover up. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
LiuLi Cup
Maru vs Reynor
Serral vs Rogue
Ladder Legends
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
