|
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 December 05 2018 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Years? Oh shit.
Question: At what point would we start invalidating past elections? Lets say we had 100% certain evidence an election 2 years ago was stolen. What do we do? I am assuming this is uncharted territory and we don't actually have anything in place for something major.
Well the good news is the people who are looking into it arent the Republicans so you can be sure digging will be done. I'm curious if the GOP primary loser has a case. IIRC his lost to Harris was really close and he too lost on absentees ballots in those counties.
|
On December 05 2018 07:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On December 05 2018 07:36 JimmiC wrote:There is now multiple GOP senators that are saying that they KNOW that the Saudi Prince ordered and controlled the killing of Khashoggi. Which is basically a pretty blatant shot by them at Trump calling him a liar since he heard what they did and said he was unsure. I wonder if this will push more GOP members to push to some more transparency into Trumps dealings with the Saudi's. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/haspel-briefing-khashoggi/index.html "We may never know what happened to Khashoggi" The "smoking saw" says otherwise. This seems like a big deal to me because it is not democrats it is GOP, so there is no saying this is a bipartisan attack. Obviously they are all RINO's.
|
5930 Posts
On December 05 2018 09:10 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Years? Oh shit.
Question: At what point would we start invalidating past elections? Lets say we had 100% certain evidence an election 2 years ago was stolen. What do we do? I am assuming this is uncharted territory and we don't actually have anything in place for something major. Well the good news is the people who are looking into it arent the Republicans so you can be sure digging will be done. I'm curious if the GOP primary loser has a case. IIRC his lost to Harris was really close and he too lost on absentees ballots in those counties.
Posting this tweet with minimal context text because its completely self-explanatory. Whoever Dowless does business for ends up winning fuckhuge in absentees. All in Bladen as well:
|
On December 05 2018 08:07 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 07:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 05 2018 05:33 Yurie wrote:On December 05 2018 04:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ryzel, we are not seeking to censor him, so you can stop typing as if we are already. So as it is being free to post we are free to reply. Or does it only work one way? But, can you find a single positive statement from this guy? Any statement which doesn't display a total lack of knowledge of history or reality? What do you find something positive about a catholic theocratic monarchy? Not only would that be an oxymoron in itself, but then you got the monarchy part, where I think there are only 3 monarchies as a government type in the world and they are all would be a terrible place for a Catholic to live in, the theocratic part is also untenable in any country apart from Iran, which sees constant unrest from anger at theocratic elements, never mind the USA, which expouses freedom of religion.
He wrote what he wrote, we wrote what we wrote, and yet you are acting as if he is being repressed for his views, which by the way, he certainly will be under his own imaginary ideal system of government. There are a lot of monarchies globally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchiesEven if we limit it to absolute ones there are 7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy#Contemporary_monarchiesOne absolute monarchy would be decent for Catholics. The Vatican state is counted as an Elective absolute monarchy. They are not monarchies as a form of government. And you'll note that they are all absolutely terrible places for a Catholic to be in. Maybe not Swaziland though. No one in their right mind, even when they are feeling particularily patriotic on the Queen's birthday would ever call the UK as a monarchy as a form of government. Or as someone would like to put it, a hereditory position of absolute power. Sure we can call it a constitutional monarchy, where the monarchy has no real power except for tradition, where upon we can agree to call it a democracy broadly speaking. The Pope is not a monarch as it is not a hereditory position, no matter what wikipedia decides to tell you. And when what is now called the Vatican State was a million times more powerful, it was called The Papal State, a theocracy of Catholicsm. I'll leave it for you to find out how it faired. I don't see why an elected heir would make it less of a monarchy? The Holy Roman Empire had an elected position for its ruler as just one other example of that happening. Though that wasn't much of an absolute realm due to the lower tiers having most of the power in their areas. If you don't want to consider constitutional monarchies as monarchies that is up to you.
Constitutional monarchies obviously are a form of monarchy, but not the one that was suggested. The context clearly was in regards to autocratic monarchies. A crowned republic is also a form of monarchy, yet we don't call Australia a monarchy.
It's not necessarily the elected heir that makes it less of a monarchy (not every absolute monarchy had an hereditary heir, even though that happened just rarely), it's the form of government itself. An absolute monarchy is pretty far from a constitutional monarchy in that regard - and the result was spectacularly different too. The power of the emperor was limited, which isn't the case in absolute monarchies where the monarch has a (made up, of course) divine status.
edit: to elaborate on the emperor part, the "Reichstag" (which still exists in germany, just.. slightly different), or Imperial Diet was a legislative body that theoretically had more power than the Emperor (or emperor elect).
edit2: the UK is btw still a constitutional monarchy, and again, pretty far from the "absolute monarchy" people were talking about.
|
Mueller and his team is not recommending Flynn be put up for charges and says he should be given little to no jail time for substantial cooperation. He was up for some serious crimes so the 19 interviews he was part of must have been worth something. To me, it sends a message that if you are willing to cooperate, you will be given mercy, and that Mueller isn't a vindictive monster seeking to hunt down the Trump circle.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/us/politics/michael-flynn-special-counsel-sentencing-memo.html
|
On December 05 2018 10:19 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 09:10 On_Slaught wrote:On December 05 2018 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Years? Oh shit.
Question: At what point would we start invalidating past elections? Lets say we had 100% certain evidence an election 2 years ago was stolen. What do we do? I am assuming this is uncharted territory and we don't actually have anything in place for something major. Well the good news is the people who are looking into it arent the Republicans so you can be sure digging will be done. I'm curious if the GOP primary loser has a case. IIRC his lost to Harris was really close and he too lost on absentees ballots in those counties. Posting this tweet with minimal context text because its completely self-explanatory. Whoever Dowless does business for ends up winning fuckhuge in absentees. All in Bladen as well: https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1070111027268866051
So brazen and obvious. Years of election fraud... you can bet somebody noticed but said nothing. Follow the money.
Still, I'd be shocked if there wasn't a special election (if not a primary revote) due to the numbers we're talking about. More absentee ballots weren't returned in the 2 counties Dowless' people worked than the difference in votes. No way this election result would be accepted by the voting committee, let alone the US House.
Even tho Harris probably wins a revote, this is fun if only for the fact that we all get a front row seat to the GOP's moral bankruptcy and party before country attitude. That voter/election fraud is one of their most used cover ups makes this peak 2018. Somebody call Kris Kobach!
|
This comment on Reddit mirrors all my views and I am on my phone so I am going to paste it here:
+ Show Spoiler +
Mueller dropped a few hints in this memo.
1. Leadership will be held to the higher standard. Shots fired at everyone!
2. Flynn rolled on for three separate investigations (Turkey, Russia-Trump Campaign, ???). The SCO listed their investigation as the second of three.
3. Provided documents and communications (tapes?!) to investigators.
4. Kushner is fucked given what we know about his history with lying and what he did during the transition.
5. The attorneys signed onto the main memo are Brandon Van Grack (National Security - Counter Espionage and Cyber Crimes) and Zainab Ahmad (National Security - Antiterrorism and Organized Crime). Note - Van Grack returned to the National Security Division of the FBI a few weeks ago.
6. Flynn flipping led to other witnesses flipping. We see you KT!
7. Mike Flynn Jr. got bailed out by his dad.
This is just so huge. Remember guys, we were once at a point where mainstream conservatives were skeptical Flynn was guilty.
|
We are inching ever so closer to the reality where Trump pardons his son and son in law for crimes committed while on his campaign. I cant imagine a situation where he wouldn't if they're indicted.
|
On December 05 2018 13:39 On_Slaught wrote:
We are inching ever so closer to the reality where Trump pardons his son and son in law for crimes committed while on his campaign. I cant imagine a situation where he wouldn't if they're indicted.
They wouldn't let Flynn off without Flynn giving them enough to bring someone higher up down. No matter what, someone above Flynn is toast. The only people above Flynn are Jr, Kushner and Trump. One of the big 3 are for sure fucked. It's wild to think we've gotten to this point already.
|
United States42654 Posts
|
On December 05 2018 08:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 07:51 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2018 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On December 05 2018 07:36 JimmiC wrote:There is now multiple GOP senators that are saying that they KNOW that the Saudi Prince ordered and controlled the killing of Khashoggi. Which is basically a pretty blatant shot by them at Trump calling him a liar since he heard what they did and said he was unsure. I wonder if this will push more GOP members to push to some more transparency into Trumps dealings with the Saudi's. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/haspel-briefing-khashoggi/index.html "We may never know what happened to Khashoggi" The "smoking saw" says otherwise. This seems like a big deal to me because it is not democrats it is GOP, so there is no saying this is a bipartisan attack. This is a very strange time to be a member of T_D. They basically hate everything about Saudi Arabia, yet Trump is the only man in the country defending Saudi Arabia. I don't see how any red hat makes sense of this.
Saudi is a proxy for Israeli interests in the middle east which is why Trump approves.
The Saudi war in Yemen continues (Although the fake news never reports on it) , the demonisation of Iran continues.A weakened Arab world benefits Israel the most as it seeks to strengthen it’s power in the region.Divide and conquer is an old tactic but still very much in use today.
|
5930 Posts
On December 05 2018 17:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 08:51 Mohdoo wrote:On December 05 2018 07:51 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2018 07:44 Mohdoo wrote:On December 05 2018 07:36 JimmiC wrote:There is now multiple GOP senators that are saying that they KNOW that the Saudi Prince ordered and controlled the killing of Khashoggi. Which is basically a pretty blatant shot by them at Trump calling him a liar since he heard what they did and said he was unsure. I wonder if this will push more GOP members to push to some more transparency into Trumps dealings with the Saudi's. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/haspel-briefing-khashoggi/index.html "We may never know what happened to Khashoggi" The "smoking saw" says otherwise. This seems like a big deal to me because it is not democrats it is GOP, so there is no saying this is a bipartisan attack. This is a very strange time to be a member of T_D. They basically hate everything about Saudi Arabia, yet Trump is the only man in the country defending Saudi Arabia. I don't see how any red hat makes sense of this. Saudi is a proxy for Israeli interests in the middle east which is why Trump approves. The Saudi war in Yemen continues ( Although the fake news never reports on it) , the demonisation of Iran continues.A weakened Arab world benefits Israel the most as it seeks to strengthen it’s power in the region.Divide and conquer is an old tactic but still very much in use today.
If you're referring to the "mainstream media" with "fake news", it might help to actually do some reading or watching. The conflict in Yemen and along with the Khashoggi murder was the leading story from BBC World News in most of late October/November, along with scattered reports of China running detention camps for their Uyghur minorities. The Washington Post had a few articles about the Yemen conflict in November as well.
Just because you're selective about your media consumption doesn't mean the "fake news" isn't reporting on these incidents.
On December 05 2018 12:51 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2018 10:19 Womwomwom wrote:On December 05 2018 09:10 On_Slaught wrote:On December 05 2018 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Years? Oh shit.
Question: At what point would we start invalidating past elections? Lets say we had 100% certain evidence an election 2 years ago was stolen. What do we do? I am assuming this is uncharted territory and we don't actually have anything in place for something major. Well the good news is the people who are looking into it arent the Republicans so you can be sure digging will be done. I'm curious if the GOP primary loser has a case. IIRC his lost to Harris was really close and he too lost on absentees ballots in those counties. Posting this tweet with minimal context text because its completely self-explanatory. Whoever Dowless does business for ends up winning fuckhuge in absentees. All in Bladen as well: https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1070111027268866051 So brazen and obvious. Years of election fraud... you can bet somebody noticed but said nothing. Follow the money. Still, I'd be shocked if there wasn't a special election (if not a primary revote) due to the numbers we're talking about. More absentee ballots weren't returned in the 2 counties Dowless' people worked than the difference in votes. No way this election result would be accepted by the voting committee, let alone the US House. Even tho Harris probably wins a revote, this is fun if only for the fact that we all get a front row seat to the GOP's moral bankruptcy and party before country attitude. That voter/election fraud is one of their most used cover ups makes this peak 2018. Somebody call Kris Kobach!
Which is why all these attempts to deal with voter fraud are complete bullshit.
No election in a functional democracy has ever been stolen by voters intentionally conducting mass fraud. As Australia's AEC has found out, the only voter fraud that really happens is from older folks who forget that they've already voted and get confused. There's zero evidence that its actually a major problem, every bit of it has always been an appeal to fear.
All forms of fraud are in the form of disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, and corrupt people operating the elections. It isn't unique to Republicans either, although NC, WI, GA are trying their best to prove that they just really hate people voting and being represented. States like New York have some truly garbage election systems that are intentionally there to protect the state's political machine. And in all of these cases, bullshit like voter ids don't do anything to prevent them from occurring.
|
How can something be both fake and simultaneously not reporting on it..?
Edit: Is this a can of worms I really want to open?
|
|
|
On December 05 2018 19:18 Excludos wrote:
How can something be both fake and simultaneously not reporting on it..?
Edit: Is this a can of worms I really want to open?
The internet’s eternal question: What if this person takes life advice from Yahoo Answers?
|
On December 05 2018 19:18 Excludos wrote:
How can something be both fake and simultaneously not reporting on it..?
Edit: Is this a can of worms I really want to open?
I think everyone here understands that « fake news » in the mouth of Trump supporters means « everyone writing critically about the dear leader ».
As for what Nettles expects using this idiotic newspeak bullshit other than people discarding the rest of his post, we will never know. I got there, rolled my eyes and didn’t bother to carry on, and i assume i’m not alone.
|
On December 05 2018 00:19 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 23:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2018 08:02 Ryzel wrote:On December 04 2018 06:28 ReditusSum wrote:
The enlightenment was the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.
Can you elaborate on this? Please don’t. This thread got rid of really vague ideological discussions, it’s not something i miss. The whole “us should be a theocracy with lots of dukes and enlightenment suck » was really funny, but I’m not sure it’s a discussion we need to spend days of your lives on. Unless your plan is to convince RS that his ideas are truly fucking terrible, but if it didn’t occur to him spontaneously, I’m afraid you are losing your time. Show nested quote +On December 04 2018 23:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I like vague ideological discussions. We should invite and unban xdaunt and danglars just for this "discussion". Putting aside the laughable implication that someone should not be allowed to debate their ideas on a public(ish) forum just because you disagree with your perception of their views, what meritorious discussions are we denying by allowing someone to debate their point? Multiple conversations can happen simultaneously in a forum (pretty sure the Roman ones were famous for having people screaming over each other). So if either of you have something in mind worth discussing, then by all means share it with us so we can discuss it.
The problem is that really low quality discusions about really outrageous pov tend to take over with absolutely no positive result. We spent hundreds of pages in the old days debatting brilliant ideas such as abolishing the police and the merit of ethno states and they tend to completely take over topics somewhat rooted in reality.
It’s totally fine to post such baroque ideas such as how the usa sould be a catholic theocracy ruled by hereditary dukes, but after the initial good laugh, I wanted to suggest to move on as quickly as possible since there is essentially nothing to discuss. I have no intention of being a censor, just giving a friendly advice on where to put our energy.
|
I mean, if he has receipts, either in the form of emails or tapes, which he seems to have, then shit really will be going down. I wonder who the redacted criminal investigation is about. Jr maybe? Kushner? No way we are so lucky that its Trump himself, right? I mean, you could definitely fit "President Donald J. Trump," or something like that, in the redacted part. Unlikely but fun to think about.
Edit: def should add Pence to the list. Flynn was fired for supposedly misleading Pence. I dont think anyone would be surprised to find that Pence knew what he said was false.
|
There is likely evidence to back up what Flynn is telling the investigators. But folks need to remember that the Courts are the opposite of the internet. On the internet wants receipts to prove that someone’s claim is valid. Courts demand people attest that receipts are legit. You can have unlimited receipts, documents, emails or otherwise, and the court will not care if you don’t have a reliable witness to attest to their validity and relevance. Flynn’s testimony is extremely valuable because of that.
|
Mueller saying Flynn gave info regarding the transition team seems to imply Pence may be in trouble.
I think we can say with certainty that one or more of the following are completely screwed:
Jr
Kushner
Pence
Trump
I also think it is likely that one of the mystery investigations involves illegal foreign lobbying, like what Flynn was doing for turkey. It could be that there is a whole group conducting this stuff and Flynn helped take them down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
