|
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 January 12 2020 02:34 raga4ka wrote:
Iran can't catch a break with recent events. They got their top general assassinated. A stampede at his funeral killed 50+ people and injured dozens more. And now pressure that led to human error destroyed an airplane full of people. Both themselves and the US is partially to blame. Man if there are religious nutjobs that seek revenge, they would be pretty furious just about now.
Does the US not get tired of making enemies? And for what... Protecting Israeli and Saudi's interests? Is it worth it?
Trump seems to have solved that problem, now NATO will have to take the blame in the middle east... US acts like a thug more and more in recent times with Trump the perfect Mob boss, that would sanction any country or organisation (ICC, WTO) if it doesn't obey.
And why does NATO take the blame?
Just because Trump said a retarded thing?
|
On January 12 2020 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2020 02:34 raga4ka wrote:
Iran can't catch a break with recent events. They got their top general assassinated. A stampede at his funeral killed 50+ people and injured dozens more. And now pressure that led to human error destroyed an airplane full of people. Both themselves and the US is partially to blame. Man if there are religious nutjobs that seek revenge, they would be pretty furious just about now.
Does the US not get tired of making enemies? And for what... Protecting Israeli and Saudi's interests? Is it worth it?
Trump seems to have solved that problem, now NATO will have to take the blame in the middle east... US acts like a thug more and more in recent times with Trump the perfect Mob boss, that would sanction any country or organisation (ICC, WTO) if it doesn't obey.
And why does NATO take the blame? Just because Trump said a retarded thing?
I was just being sarcastic. Trump wants to invite countries from the middle east to NATO and share their problems with other NATO countries.
|
i dont think anyone knows what trump wants, besides getting reelected
|
On January 12 2020 08:35 Erasme wrote:
i dont think anyone knows what trump wants, besides getting reelected
Including Trump
|
On January 12 2020 02:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:I personally credit civilization (1  ) for developing my interest in history! And I do believe that is somewhat more accessible than EU-whatever. :D
A lot of my geography knowledge comes from Railroad Tycoon (with some Risk, Civilization and Total War thrown in).
|
It's a signpost, to me. In the course of acquiring the knowledge necessary to have an informed discussion about a country, you would assume that the person had eventually picked up its location because, as our lurker just decloaked to point out, geography factors into everything else about that country.
Like, I'm willing to accept that it's possible to be a good mechanic without knowing how to drive, but you have to have a pretty weird set of circumstances to end up there. If I'm talking to a friend about my car troubles and he gives me a fifteen minute lecture on why my transmission is busted, and then I find out he's not even sure which pedal makes the car go, I am never listening to that friend's opinion again.
EDIT: also how does TL not have a literal lurker as the icon for people with accounts older than X but postcount under Y? Guys, please.
|
|
|
Yes, I'm always really amazed at the luck Trump has on some of those things. Iran downing that plane gives him a chance to show that Iranians are not all behind their government, opposite what it looked like 3 days ago when it seems he managed to unite the country against the US. So he will be able to somehow spin it into a win...
It's sad to watch, he has NEVER gotten the short end of the stick, like, EVER.
|
United States42276 Posts
On January 12 2020 22:41 Nouar wrote:
Yes, I'm always really amazed at the luck Trump has on some of those things. Iran downing that plane gives him a chance to show that Iranians are not all behind their government, opposite what it looked like 3 days ago when it seems he managed to unite the country against the US. So he will be able to somehow spin it into a win...
It's sad to watch, he has NEVER gotten the short end of the stick, like, EVER.
He has on multiple occasions, he just never admits it and trusts that his supporters will only get their news from him directly and will deny anything that contradicts him.
|
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.
|
United States24633 Posts
I think the message to Iran is, "If you get too feisty with us, we will commit war crimes in order to start assassinating you all, and we will get away with it while denying everything. This is just a taste of what we can do to you." It is deplorable and will do more long-term harm to the USA than good, not to mention allies and the nations of the middle east.
|
I just wonder what the US goal is if not war? Regime change? Do we have any legitimate interest or is it for the sake of Israel and Saudi Arabia?
|
United States24633 Posts
The US goal is whatever the current president thinks makes sense to his strange mind at that moment, tempered a little bit, but not much, by what the advisors around him say... more likely what he hears in his favorite dark corner of the media.
|
On January 13 2020 03:10 Starlightsun wrote:
I just wonder what the US goal is if not war? Regime change? Do we have any legitimate interest or is it for the sake of Israel and Saudi Arabia?
By "the US" I assume you mean Trump and his administration. Since it's established that he doesn't listen to anyone around him and has no fucking clue what he is doing, it's safe to say the US currently doesn't have any strategy or goal of any kind whatsoever concerning Iran.
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.
Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.
It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.
Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.
Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.
Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.
Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.
|
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.
Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.
I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.
Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
|
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.
|
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing.
So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.
People already hate the game it’s why they’re not enthused about Bloomberg running.
There are plenty of transferable skills between business and politics sure, a businessman doesn’t want all his competition to be doing well, a leader of a country theoretically wants prosperity for all. We’ve already seen this with Trump’s transactional approach fo everything. Now I don’t think Bloomberg would behave similarly, but one is a domain where you’re trying to ‘win’ and the other is where you’re trying to facilitate everyone winning.
I disagree and think politicians should be higher paid, both to attract higher quality candidates and make them more resistant to the politics of the pork barrel. Despite public perceptions most of them are underpaid by a large degree when compared to what they’d be earning in private industry with their particular skillsets.
|
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Of course the net worth carries more weight. Just look at how many ads Bloomberg and Steyer were able to run. And yes, it's discriminatory, but it's not surprising that it happens under neoliberalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
