• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:45
CEST 20:45
KST 03:45
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 20259Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder2EWC 2025 - Replay Pack2Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced26BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Serral wins EWC 2025 Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 EWC 2025 - Replay Pack
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion [BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Afreeca app available on Samsung smart TV Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
How many questions are in the Publix survey?
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread UK Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 648 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6372

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6370 6371 6372 6373 6374 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

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 re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
December 06 2016 05:08 GMT
#127421
On December 06 2016 13:47 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 06 2016 11:53 xDaunt wrote:
On December 06 2016 11:50 ChristianS wrote:
On December 06 2016 11:30 xDaunt wrote:
On December 06 2016 11:07 ChristianS wrote:
On December 06 2016 10:49 xDaunt wrote:
On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:
On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:
On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign.

I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling...

Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution.

The way you describe it would be petty;
and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion.
Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances.

So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today.

Zlefin doesn't need to have read Mitt Romney's biography to realize your perspective has been consistently vindictive, with a heaping helping of schadenfreude. If you disagree with that characterization I can go try to find quotes on which I'm basing that assessment, but I suspect that won't be necessary.


I don't really disagree with any of this, and I've been quite open on these points previously. I'm a very firm believer in the value of retribution. And I firmly believe that what Romney did is worthy of the humiliation that he currently is receiving.

Likewise, when someone unnecessarily -- and without provocation -- attacks me personally twice in a day with shitposts that are patently absurd, I'm going to respond.

You've been pretty clear about how much you're enjoying everyone's panic and disillusionment in American democracy.


I'd phrase this differently. I'm enjoying the baseless hysteria and temper tantrums that are running rampant through some elements of the left (and, in more limited cases, the right) right now.

If you don't disagree with being described as "vindictive with a heaping helping of schadenfreude" why do you care if zlefin criticizes you for that? He seems to think (as do I) that it's inappropriate to wish harm on another human being because you disagree with them politically, and that taking joy in another's pain is a troubling attitude that should be discouraged in all but the most extreme circumstances. It appears you disagree with that opinion, but why the bad blood? He's criticizing you for something you freely admit to but don't think is bad. Again, feel free to correct me if I've mischaracterized you somewhere because it seems to me you've been pretty clear.

There's a very big difference between pettiness and true retribution.

Are you counting your vindictiveness as the latter? Because I'm pretty sure I remember you writing something along the lines of "I admit that my position is petty." This is too bad, because I thought you had accepted and owned up to your pleasure at the suffering of both liberals and establishment conservatives throughout the country being largely petty and vindictive, and I could kind of respect the self-awareness of that, at least. Am I to understand you think this is justified as some righteous retribution on those people?

You're making this far harder than it needs to be. Trump's [supposed] maltreatment of Romney is retributive. My response to zlefin's shitpost is retributive. Everything else that you're bringing up and flinging at the wall is not on topic.
pmh
Profile Joined March 2016
1352 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-12-06 05:17:26
December 06 2016 05:12 GMT
#127422
On December 06 2016 10:58 Sbrubbles wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 06 2016 10:11 Logo wrote:
On December 06 2016 08:55 TanGeng wrote:
Do banks still want 20%??? But even 20% seems doable. I don't know maybe 14k just doesn't seem like all that much to me.


Where I am you need all cash to be competitive because of investors unless you want to offer like 10-30k over asking, but that varies by even small geographical differences.

Likewise a mortgage would be about the same price or less than rent, I don't know if that's true everywhere, but it makes it quite attractive to buy.

How does a renter based economy play into things like wealth concentration? Like it seems pretty bad if you have a middle class all renting and an upper class that gets to own + own rental property + pass all that on to kids.


In principle it shouldn't play into wealth concentration because there are other ways to hold wealth. In practice, though, if there are government programs and subsidies to encourage home ownership (which would explain buying being better than renting), then that does affect wealth concentration because it's essentially a subsidy to low and medium income families to save.

To be fair, I don't think I've ever read a rigorous study on the effect of home ownership programs on the saving rate, but it sounds plausible at first glance.



Off course renter based economy plays into wealth concentration. Debt based economy like credit cards/mortgages as well. The money (the rent/interest) is flowing from the lower/middle class to the upper/investor class.
Owner ship does accumulate wealth (well It more holds wealth as you wont make more then the inflation) but if you use a mortgage to buy then you are still paying of someone else ,which can be profitable btw if the price of the house rises more then the interest you pay. Accumulating with a mortgage on the property and slowly paying it off is basicly the same as safing,which off course does accumulate wealth. Mortgages where you only pay the rent and don't pay off (not sure if they exist in the usa) is the same as renting from the bank.
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-12-06 05:19:17
December 06 2016 05:17 GMT
#127423

DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation. That attack and this year’s election may seem unrelated, but for me the relationship becomes clearer every day.

George W. Bush is an imperfect man, but he led us through the tragic days following the attacks. His leadership showed that America was a great nation. That was also the last time I remember the nation united. I watch Mr. Trump fail to unite America and drive a wedge between us.

Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of “Saturday Night Live” for bias. He tweets day and night, but waited two days to offer sympathy to the Ohio State community after an attack there. He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage.

This is unacceptable. For me, America is that shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan envisioned. It has problems. It has challenges. These can be met and overcome just as our nation overcame Sept. 11.

The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.


Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html

I really wasn't expecting the Hamilton Elector push to actually gain any traction with republicans but this is nice to see. I doubt there's any credible threat of getting below 270 for Trump (though that would be interesting), but anything that can put Trump's ego into check would be a big win and send a good message about how carefully he needs to govern.

I'm curious if there will be a smear effort against the elector considering he's a republican first responder.


Mortgages where you only pay the rent and don't pay off (not sure if they exist in the usa) is the same as renting from the bank.


Those exist but aren't really used by most people.
Logo
pmh
Profile Joined March 2016
1352 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-12-06 05:20:30
December 06 2016 05:18 GMT
#127424
There is no way trump wont get 270 votes I think. He has not messed up as president elect so far so I doubt the population who voted for him would accept that. It would be a huge constitutional crisis,much worse then 4 years of trump.
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
December 06 2016 05:21 GMT
#127425
On December 06 2016 14:18 pmh wrote:
There is no way trump wont get 270 votes lol. He has not messed up as president elect so far so I doubt the population who voted for him would accept that. It would be a huge constitutional crisis,much worse then 4 years of trump. No that does not seem likely at all.


Yeah, but like I said it's not so much about dropping him below 270 as it is making a message of it. Also maybe we can get some interesting stuff around the electoral college. I don't like it, but if we have it then it should have the autonomy to function in a reasonable manner (electors work as a safety valve).
Logo
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13926 Posts
December 06 2016 05:33 GMT
#127426
If Trump doesn't get 270 and the election from the EC the supreme court will give him the presidency and abolish the EC before inauguration day. Its a non issue people are flapping their wings for pointlessly.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
December 06 2016 05:36 GMT
#127427
Any result that doesn't end in Trump becoming president will in all likelihood be worse than a Trump presidency.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-12-06 05:39:09
December 06 2016 05:37 GMT
#127428
if there are enough faithless electors to prevent trump from getting to 270, its because he's done something bad enough that like 60% of people would be pushing for an insta-impeach, though a republican congress would probably be reluctant to. but that's a purely hypothetical situation.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
December 06 2016 06:09 GMT
#127429
I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but given that state law mandates how the electors vote, what is to stop Trump from getting an injunction to force the vote in his favor?
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
December 06 2016 06:27 GMT
#127430
On December 06 2016 15:09 xDaunt wrote:
I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but given that state law mandates how the electors vote, what is to stop Trump from getting an injunction to force the vote in his favor?

Texas state law doesn't, does it?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
IyMoon
Profile Joined April 2016
United States1249 Posts
December 06 2016 07:03 GMT
#127431
On December 06 2016 15:09 xDaunt wrote:
I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but given that state law mandates how the electors vote, what is to stop Trump from getting an injunction to force the vote in his favor?


Not all states require it. I believe 13 let you do whatever the fuck you want with it
Something witty
Sbrubbles
Profile Joined October 2010
Brazil5776 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-12-06 10:27:58
December 06 2016 10:12 GMT
#127432
On December 06 2016 14:12 pmh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 06 2016 10:58 Sbrubbles wrote:
On December 06 2016 10:11 Logo wrote:
On December 06 2016 08:55 TanGeng wrote:
Do banks still want 20%??? But even 20% seems doable. I don't know maybe 14k just doesn't seem like all that much to me.


Where I am you need all cash to be competitive because of investors unless you want to offer like 10-30k over asking, but that varies by even small geographical differences.

Likewise a mortgage would be about the same price or less than rent, I don't know if that's true everywhere, but it makes it quite attractive to buy.

How does a renter based economy play into things like wealth concentration? Like it seems pretty bad if you have a middle class all renting and an upper class that gets to own + own rental property + pass all that on to kids.


In principle it shouldn't play into wealth concentration because there are other ways to hold wealth. In practice, though, if there are government programs and subsidies to encourage home ownership (which would explain buying being better than renting), then that does affect wealth concentration because it's essentially a subsidy to low and medium income families to save.

To be fair, I don't think I've ever read a rigorous study on the effect of home ownership programs on the saving rate, but it sounds plausible at first glance.



Off course renter based economy plays into wealth concentration. Debt based economy like credit cards/mortgages as well. The money (the rent/interest) is flowing from the lower/middle class to the upper/investor class.
Owner ship does accumulate wealth (well It more holds wealth as you wont make more then the inflation) but if you use a mortgage to buy then you are still paying of someone else ,which can be profitable btw if the price of the house rises more then the interest you pay. Accumulating with a mortgage on the property and slowly paying it off is basicly the same as safing,which off course does accumulate wealth. Mortgages where you only pay the rent and don't pay off (not sure if they exist in the usa) is the same as renting from the bank.


My point is simple, and I think you've misunderstood it: a family can save up and buy a house or can save up, buy any other investment vehicle (stocks for example), pay rent and receive the returns from the investment vehicle. In principle wealth concentration is the same in both scenarios because the wealth is there, just in different forms. Note that I said save up and buy, but it can be buy and save up (aka, finance your house), what matters is the "save up" part, the specific money flows are irrelevant. House ownership policies can affect wealth concentration because they subsidise the "save up" part for low and middle income families (though there are other, more important determinants of wealth concentration which I'll not mention because they are irrelevant to this specific point about housing).
Bora Pain minha porra!
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-12-06 14:00:20
December 06 2016 13:54 GMT
#127433
On December 06 2016 15:09 xDaunt wrote:
I haven't looked at the issue in detail, but given that state law mandates how the electors vote, what is to stop Trump from getting an injunction to force the vote in his favor?

that might work but it's unclear. iirc the elector mandate laws have never been challenged in federal court, it's not clear if they'd withstand a constitutional challenge.

edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#U.S._Supreme_Court
has a bit more detail.
looks like requiring electors to claim they'll support the candidate is ok; but actually requiring them to follow up on their pledge may well not be.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
December 06 2016 13:58 GMT
#127434
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21670 Posts
December 06 2016 14:28 GMT
#127435
On December 06 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote:
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented.

Considering how utterly outdated the elector system is. I don't see why they would split 4-4 on this.
Do you think that a few unruly electors would be allowed to overturn the results of an election? That any Supreme Court Justice would allow such an undermining of the United States?

Not happening.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-12-06 14:36:25
December 06 2016 14:34 GMT
#127436
On December 06 2016 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 06 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote:
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented.

Considering how utterly outdated the elector system is. I don't see why they would split 4-4 on this.
Do you think that a few unruly electors would be allowed to overturn the results of an election? That any Supreme Court Justice would allow such an undermining of the United States?

Not happening.

regardless of how outdated it is; the electoral college in general is explicitly constitutional.
and the documents from the founding tend to indicate that electors would be entirely within their rights to do so.
so if we're following strict rule of law, it might well be the case that you'd have to allow it.

The supreme court in general likes ot punt on issues if it can find a way to do so.


they might just let it stand; knowing that it would then be a contested election and go to a republican controlled congress.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21670 Posts
December 06 2016 14:37 GMT
#127437
On December 06 2016 23:34 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 06 2016 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:
On December 06 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote:
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented.

Considering how utterly outdated the elector system is. I don't see why they would split 4-4 on this.
Do you think that a few unruly electors would be allowed to overturn the results of an election? That any Supreme Court Justice would allow such an undermining of the United States?

Not happening.

regardless of how outdated it is; the electoral college in general is explicitly constitutional.
and the documents from the founding tend to indicate that electors would be entirely within their rights to do so.

The supreme court in general likes ot punt on issues if it can find a way to do so.


they might just let it stand; knowing that it would then be a contested election and go to a republican controlled congress.

Their not going to avoid a ruling on who becomes the next President of the USA.

Its one thing to abstain on social changes, the leadership of the country is quiet another.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
December 06 2016 14:40 GMT
#127438
That reasoning is exactly why they'd punt; even Ginsburg dislikes judicial activism, and if the court's ensuing decision can be characterized as a "ruling on who becomes the next President of the USA," you'd better believe that the court is seriously going to consider abstention in this scenario. Literally no one in the legal community, majority included, thinks Bush v. Gore was a good thing.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Slaughter
Profile Blog Joined November 2003
United States20254 Posts
December 06 2016 14:41 GMT
#127439
Plus with a vacancy even more reason to punt it.
Never Knows Best.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-12-06 14:43:52
December 06 2016 14:43 GMT
#127440
On December 06 2016 23:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 06 2016 23:34 zlefin wrote:
On December 06 2016 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:
On December 06 2016 22:58 farvacola wrote:
An 8 Justice Supreme Court would almost certainly punt on an issue so massive and unprecedented.

Considering how utterly outdated the elector system is. I don't see why they would split 4-4 on this.
Do you think that a few unruly electors would be allowed to overturn the results of an election? That any Supreme Court Justice would allow such an undermining of the United States?

Not happening.

regardless of how outdated it is; the electoral college in general is explicitly constitutional.
and the documents from the founding tend to indicate that electors would be entirely within their rights to do so.

The supreme court in general likes ot punt on issues if it can find a way to do so.


they might just let it stand; knowing that it would then be a contested election and go to a republican controlled congress.

Their not going to avoid a ruling on who becomes the next President of the USA.

Its one thing to abstain on social changes, the leadership of the country is quiet another.


it'd be entirely proper to avoid ruling on who becomes president of the USA. as farv elaborated on.
Anyways, a president would be chosen regardless of how they rule.
and if you follow the rule of law, it could well be that electors can do that.

I think they'd certainly be inclined to punt rather than have a 4-4 or 5-3 ruling. if they could get an 8-0 or 7-1 ruling, they might just go with that of course.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Prev 1 6370 6371 6372 6373 6374 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RotterdaM Event
17:00
Rotti Stream Rumble All-Random
RotterdaM653
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 653
mcanning 199
UpATreeSC 118
SteadfastSC 63
EmSc Tv 59
MindelVK 26
StarCraft: Brood War
Mini 1044
EffOrt 670
Larva 323
Mind 167
yabsab 125
Dewaltoss 117
TY 77
Free 46
eros_byul 0
Dota 2
qojqva5265
League of Legends
Grubby2291
Counter-Strike
fl0m3945
sgares432
Super Smash Bros
Westballz31
Other Games
B2W.Neo935
Fuzer 114
Trikslyr83
mouzStarbuck27
trigger1
Organizations
StarCraft 2
EmSc Tv 59
EmSc2Tv 59
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 21 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• kabyraGe 181
• Berry_CruncH128
• davetesta55
• intothetv
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 29
• 80smullet 18
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 5398
• masondota21709
• WagamamaTV369
League of Legends
• TFBlade1329
Other Games
• imaqtpie1322
• Shiphtur569
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
15h 15m
WardiTV European League
21h 15m
PiGosaur Monday
1d 5h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 21h
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
Online Event
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.