hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2386 of 2702 FirstFirst ... 138618862286233623762383238423852386238723882389239624362486 ... LastLast
Results 47,701 to 47,720 of 54040

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #47701
    smuggo
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vDJ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Schneiderman has also been a vocal proponent of the #MeToo movement, bringing legal action in New York against film producer Harvey Weinstein, who has been accused of sexually assaulting women.
    Haha... The biggest virtue signallers turn out to be the biggest perverts. Really makes you think.
    The Democrats dumped him within 3 hours

    Meanwhile the Pussygrabber is still president
    Both sides are the same.
    Yes, both sides have individuals who engage in illegal sexual abuse/harassment.

    Dems and Pro-Dem media types just do it more often.
    [citation needed]
    If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means post it.
    I don't really have a good source, but let's go with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E...exual_scandals

    Republican: 32
    Democrat: 26

    Your move, good sir.
    The Wiki list does not include Pro-Dem media types, which I did include in my statement.

    The Wiki list also includes "payed for a call girl" type issues, which are not sexual assault/sexual harassment issues.
    Okay, I'll bite some more.

    Your argument is sort of flawed. Assuming that the media is more left-leaning in general (based on this, don't know if it's accurate) then even if the sexual misconduct is not associated with Dem/Rep spectrum, you'd expect more sexual misconduct from left-leaning media personalities because that's how statistics work.

    If we work on basis of the link above, then you'd look at 24 vs 9 -distribution on left vs right leaning media, and you'd expect something like 3-1 distribution in sexual misconduct with more cases from the Pro-Dem media than from the Pro-Rep media.

    If you'd see more than that, then you'd have an argument, in my opinion. You wouldn't argue that whites are more prone to be convicted of a crime than African-americans even though the absolute number of whites in prisons is larger than the number of African-americans (afaik)?

    And a general comment, how do you classify people into Pro-Dem and Pro-Rep? Is everyone working on the MSNBC automatically Pro-Dem, for example? Weinstein was probably pro-dem, for example, as he literally gave them money, but he could have just been buying influence? Charlie Rose seems to be quite centric and has been called both liberal and conservative. What is Roy Price's affiliation or leaning? Or Michael Oreskes'?


    I'm going to have to congratulate myself on this flawless bait.

    I'm aware that power corrupts but maybe those who have dabbled in naughty acts shouldn't broadcast their hypocrisy.

  2. #47702
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vDJ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Schneiderman has also been a vocal proponent of the #MeToo movement, bringing legal action in New York against film producer Harvey Weinstein, who has been accused of sexually assaulting women.
    Haha... The biggest virtue signallers turn out to be the biggest perverts. Really makes you think.
    The Democrats dumped him within 3 hours

    Meanwhile the Pussygrabber is still president
    Both sides are the same.
    Yes, both sides have individuals who engage in illegal sexual abuse/harassment.

    Dems and Pro-Dem media types just do it more often.
    [citation needed]
    If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means post it.
    I don't really have a good source, but let's go with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E...exual_scandals

    Republican: 32
    Democrat: 26

    Your move, good sir.
    The Wiki list does not include Pro-Dem media types, which I did include in my statement.

    The Wiki list also includes "payed for a call girl" type issues, which are not sexual assault/sexual harassment issues.
    Okay, I'll bite some more.

    Your argument is sort of flawed. Assuming that the media is more left-leaning in general (based on this, don't know if it's accurate) then even if the sexual misconduct is not associated with Dem/Rep spectrum, you'd expect more sexual misconduct from left-leaning media personalities because that's how statistics work.

    If we work on basis of the link above, then you'd look at 24 vs 9 -distribution on left vs right leaning media, and you'd expect something like 3-1 distribution in sexual misconduct with more cases from the Pro-Dem media than from the Pro-Rep media.

    If you'd see more than that, then you'd have an argument, in my opinion. You wouldn't argue that whites are more prone to be convicted of a crime than African-americans even though the absolute number of whites in prisons is larger than the number of African-americans (afaik)?

    And a general comment, how do you classify people into Pro-Dem and Pro-Rep? Is everyone working on the MSNBC automatically Pro-Dem, for example? Weinstein was probably pro-dem, for example, as he literally gave them money, but he could have just been buying influence? Charlie Rose seems to be quite centric and has been called both liberal and conservative. What is Roy Price's affiliation or leaning? Or Michael Oreskes'?


    I'm going to have to congratulate myself on this flawless bait.

    I'm aware that power corrupts but maybe those who have dabbled in naughty acts shouldn't broadcast their hypocrisy.
    You really are a master baiter, sir.
    meh

  3. #47703

    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    2,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Some days I really do wish you guys would apply one one-hundredth of the well deserved cynicism and doubt and distrust you cast at everything Republican/American, and wield that when thinking about countries like Iran.

    Pipedream, I know. Iran > America anyway, right?
    You should really swap out some of the Fox News for John Oliver.

  4. #47704
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?
    Yes. To say otherwise means you are biased.

    All international orgs involved in the deal agree that Iran has followed it. They are no longer developing nuclear weapons. Even the top ranks of the national security community, which are usually very conservative when it comes to Iran, agree that the deal is working.

    So what you have left is partisan whackjobs like John Bolton who are against the deal for their own ends.

    Would you rather trust the likes of General Mattis and HR McMaster, or the usual Iran agitators on Fox News? Hmmmm... :thinking:

  5. #47705
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?
    Yes. To say otherwise means you are biased.

    All international orgs involved in the deal agree that Iran has followed it. They are no longer developing nuclear weapons. Even the top ranks of the national security community, which are usually very conservative when it comes to Iran, agree that the deal is working.

    So what you have left is partisan whackjobs like John Bolton who are against the deal for their own ends.

    Would you rather trust the likes of General Mattis and HR McMaster, or the usual Iran agitators on Fox News? Hmmmm... :thinking:
    No doubts at all. /shrug, ok.

    Feels like Deja Vu tbqh, sounds exactly like talk about NK before NK got their nukes.

    So the U.S. is backing out, but everyone else is still in and will refuse to join in on Trump's sanctions.

    Will the deal survive? If Iran has a deal with all those other Great Nations, a deal that's working, that Iran is ok with and wants to adhere to and would surely never go around, surely they'll stay in it even without the U.S. right?


  6. #47706
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?
    Yes. To say otherwise means you are biased.

    All international orgs involved in the deal agree that Iran has followed it. They are no longer developing nuclear weapons. Even the top ranks of the national security community, which are usually very conservative when it comes to Iran, agree that the deal is working.

    So what you have left is partisan whackjobs like John Bolton who are against the deal for their own ends.

    Would you rather trust the likes of General Mattis and HR McMaster, or the usual Iran agitators on Fox News? Hmmmm... :thinking:
    No doubts at all. /shrug, ok.

    Feels like Deja Vu tbqh, sounds exactly like talk about NK before NK got their nukes.

    So the U.S. is backing out, but everyone else is still in and will refuse to join in on Trump's sanctions.

    Will the deal survive? If Iran has a deal with all those other Great Nations, a deal that's working, that Iran is ok with and wants to adhere to and would surely never go around, surely they'll stay in it even without the U.S. right?
    Yeah cause crippling economic sanctions is always fun. And this will cause a wider conflict with EU and USA cause USA havea tendency to go after companies ignoring US sanctions. ANd EU will be forced to respond to any US action if they decides to stay in the treaty.

  7. #47707
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,382
    Alistair your bias is showing, HARD.

    Germany is Iran's biggest trade partner and the deal included us for that reason. As you may be aware, Germans don't like war and have a huge aversion towards nuclear weapons. If there had been any indications that Iran was skirting the agreement, there would have been a huge media frenzy here. Our biggest tabloid is very pro-Israel (founded right after the war, it's a core tenet of the paper) and they would have happily jumped on any indication that Iran was going rogue. But there was nothing, in fact they disproved every single point Trump made. It was literally only Trump and Fox News.
    nevar forget

  8. #47708
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    In FAR more interesting news, Trump just withdrew from the Iran Nuclear deal.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...D=ansmsnnews11

    Maybe now folks will finally agree that doing this deal as a presidential action, instead of a ratified treaty, was not the right route to go.
    Its almost like the party with a majority in Congress wasn't interested in a non-violent solution to the problem...
    Do you believe the treaty "solves the problem" of Iran becoming a Nuclear Power?
    Yes. To say otherwise means you are biased.

    All international orgs involved in the deal agree that Iran has followed it. They are no longer developing nuclear weapons. Even the top ranks of the national security community, which are usually very conservative when it comes to Iran, agree that the deal is working.

    So what you have left is partisan whackjobs like John Bolton who are against the deal for their own ends.

    Would you rather trust the likes of General Mattis and HR McMaster, or the usual Iran agitators on Fox News? Hmmmm... :thinking:
    No doubts at all. /shrug, ok.

    Feels like Deja Vu tbqh, sounds exactly like talk about NK before NK got their nukes.

    So the U.S. is backing out, but everyone else is still in and will refuse to join in on Trump's sanctions.

    Will the deal survive? If Iran has a deal with all those other Great Nations, a deal that's working, that Iran is ok with and wants to adhere to and would surely never go around, surely they'll stay in it even without the U.S. right?
    I don't know what you expect then. A letter from God with his seal approving the deal?

    There's always going to be a little uncertainty. Like what if a reactionary government came to power and decided to scrap the d- oh wait.

  9. #47709
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Yeah cause crippling economic sanctions is always fun. And this will cause a wider conflict with EU and USA cause USA havea tendency to go after companies ignoring US sanctions. ANd EU will be forced to respond to any US action if they decides to stay in the treaty.
    Can the U.S. "cripple" Iran if Russia and the EU go against the U.S. and with Iran?

    Just like with the threat of tariffs, the EU (and Russia) can just scream bloody murder and make their own threats of retaliation against the U.S., and Trump will back off.

    Likely end result, Iran is sanctioned only by the U.S., and retains trade with everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Alistair your bias is showing, HARD.
    I don't trust Iran, nor do I trust U.S./Euro Intelligence to sniff out violations.

    All of you do, it seems.

    Like I said, /shrug, ok.

    See you in a few years when we're talking about how Iran having nukes is no big deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Germany is Iran's biggest trade partner and the deal included us for that reason. As you may be aware, Germans don't like war and have a huge aversion towards nuclear weapons. If there had been any indications that Iran was skirting the agreement, there would have been a huge media frenzy here. Our biggest tabloid is very pro-Israel (founded right after the war, it's a core tenet of the paper) and they would have happily jumped on any indication that Iran was going rogue. But there was nothing, in fact they disproved every single point Trump made. It was literally only Trump and Fox News.
    Ok.


  10. #47710
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,382
    You don't trust anyone. Ok. Finally something that is hard to argue with.

    You will have to accept that everyone else however trusts everyone else enough to actually wanting to hold onto that deal.
    nevar forget

  11. #47711
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    The cognitive dissonance is incredible...

    See you in a few years when we're talking about how Iran having nukes is no big deal.
    That would be your fault if that's the case since YOU ARE THE ONE BREAKING THE FUCKING TREATY.

    Im so happy Israel waited a full hour to bomb Iranian targets.... #ThisWillEndWell

  12. #47712
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    6,666
    Part of the reason that it sounds the same is because it is very similar. Practically you won't stop a nation which sees the strategic need for nukes from getting them.

    The deal is designed to delay Iran pursuing nukes and relatively normalising relations prior to the point they get them. Thereby minimising the risk of another war in the Middle East that the US can't afford.

    It brings Iran to the table by treating them like a rational actor instead of treating them like rogue state.

  13. #47713
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,034
    Yeah, I don't trust Iran either, which is why I think it is a good idea for the IAEA to have access to inspect their nuclear sites. Too bad Trump wants to piss that away.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  14. #47714
    smuggo
    Guest
    So the big elephant in the room...

    Israel has nukes. Everyone else knows they have nukes. They don't declare it. They don't even have them purely for self defence but just to fuck everyone else over if they get beaten? Why no sanctions?

  15. #47715
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    So the big elephant in the room...

    Israel has nukes. Everyone else knows they have nukes. They don't declare it. They don't even have them purely for self defence but just to fuck everyone else over if they get beaten? Why no sanctions?
    Because the US is Israel's biggest friend and Israel simply doesn't care and stalls all diplomatic attempts and because everyone is hung up on the Iranians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...9;_Resolutions

    Nice bait btw.
    nevar forget

  16. #47716
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,374
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  17. #47717

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Snigg-PL
    Posts
    1,431
    I'm sure it's frustrating to be sperging about how someone said "no, not doing that yet" - but we've had 7 years to learn to pace ourselves after killing a block. And I dare say -- we've gotten quite good at it.

    Sorry if it doesn't suit the armchair generals who have never committed to anything for more than 2 months, but by now we've learned that we really don't give a shit about what you think v0v.

  18. #47718

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Snigg-PL
    Posts
    1,431
    Past 2 hours have been a little crazy.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...rom-putin-tied

    Stormy Danielsís attorney Michael Avenatti said Tuesday that President Trumpís personal lawyer Michael Cohen received $500,000 in the months after the 2016 election from a company run by a Russian oligarch with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
    Confirmed by New York Times a few hours later.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/u...gtype=Homepage

    Suddenly after confirmation.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/att-...istration.html

    Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said AT&T had made four separate payments of $50,000 apiece to Cohen's company, for a total of $200,000 in late 2017 and into early 2018.

    That company, Essential Consultants, was created by Cohen in October 2016 and soon after was used to make a $130,000 hush-money payment to Daniels.
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/polit...hen/index.html

    Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators have questioned a Russian oligarch about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after the election, according to a source familiar with the matter.
    And in other news, Devin Nunes shows he can go much lower than he already has.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.2fafec56e874

    Top White House officials, with the assent of President Trump, agreed to back the decision to withhold the information. They were persuaded that turning over Justice Department documents could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI, according to multiple people familiar with the discussion and the personís role.
    I'm sure it's frustrating to be sperging about how someone said "no, not doing that yet" - but we've had 7 years to learn to pace ourselves after killing a block. And I dare say -- we've gotten quite good at it.

    Sorry if it doesn't suit the armchair generals who have never committed to anything for more than 2 months, but by now we've learned that we really don't give a shit about what you think v0v.

  19. #47719

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Snigg-PL
    Posts
    1,431
    I'm sure it's frustrating to be sperging about how someone said "no, not doing that yet" - but we've had 7 years to learn to pace ourselves after killing a block. And I dare say -- we've gotten quite good at it.

    Sorry if it doesn't suit the armchair generals who have never committed to anything for more than 2 months, but by now we've learned that we really don't give a shit about what you think v0v.

  20. #47720
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,034
    Quote Originally Posted by LoKiPP View Post
    Yeah, use [tweet]

    Last edited by Dorvil Barranis; May 9 2018 at 01:54:42 AM.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •