EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3643
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada418 Posts
| ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2639 Posts
On May 22 2022 17:20 Taelshin wrote: 40 billion to Ukraine... that's nearly what would have been spent in Afghanistan. Well done everyone. This administration is really living up to the hype. Well, no American troops are dying and America and allies have successfully mired one of their biggest threats in an extremely costly war that will likely take decades to recover from (considering sanctions, future economic growth, etc.). Plus, for once, we unambiguously hold the high moral ground. Honestly, in terms of value for money, I don't think you could do much better. I am not a fan of the American military complex, but this is like the one time where it's actually delivering great outcomes. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
On May 22 2022 11:58 BlackJack wrote: Anyone with a modicum of objectivity will agree that your statement that “she claims liberals want to kill babies and farm them for a fuel source” takes more liberty with the truth than her actual statement does. It’s not “semantics.” It’s Alex Jones-esque bullshit. The fact that DocRivers got banned for his post but nobody bats an eye at your post is quite telling. I’ve seen many a quote twisted out of recognition, in this case no I don’t see how else to read those words? Unless one wants to claim this isn’t who ‘pro-abortion activists’ are. Bodies thrown in medical waste bins and, in places like Washington, DC, burned to power the lights of the city’s homes and streets. Let that image sit with you for a moment. The next time you turn on the light, think of the incinerators, and what we’re doing to ourselves so callously and so numbly. Always and everywhere, the convictions of pro-abortion activists are damaging, deadly, and devastating to the fabric of American democracy. To speak for the violence of abortion is to speak for injustice—there’s no other way to put it. 1. Foetuses as fuel source - Check 2. Liberals are to blame - Check. Unless that’s not what ‘pro abortion activists’ refers to, which seems doubtful. If she’d simply testified that foetuses end up incinerated in various ways, and this should be outlawed, hey go for it. Some staunch pro-choice people would find it distasteful. Merely being technically true, while implying something entirely different in scale and application, and attributing it to evil folks shrouded in the language of violence is absolutely GOP tactics 101. It’s in the wheelhouse of the Dems and indeed most political parties I’m familiar with, although rarely to such ridiculous levels. You must see this, it’s attaching your political enemies with heinous morals. Obama’s death camps all over again, it need not matter that it doesn’t remotely reflect the reality of the situation, it’s making people believe that this is something the opposition desires, or is capable of. Doc, aside from being a PBU wanted his cake and wanted to eat it to. Refuse to budge an inch on anything, then wanting people to entertain his pet issues, then complaining about partisanship. I could send the guy a video of Donald Trump schlupping his significant other and he’d go ‘ok that’s all well and good but have you seen this story about Hunter’s laptop on freedom andtruth.net?’ Like come on. As I said in the ban thread I would welcome more posters of a conservative disposition, but his posting habits were irritating at best, utterly obnoxious at worst. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
On May 22 2022 19:46 JimmiC wrote: For a mere 5% bump. Kinda crazy that the US spent 800bn in 2021 which was down fron 2020. I also think when judging Biden you would habe to look at how the US does in comparrison to other countries with the downturn, not blame the downturn on him. Even dood (ok not dood, but most) cant blame him for covid or Russia invading. Also, who would do better. US system plus politics where you have people whos entire platform is too just be the opposite of the other guys. I mean 57 congress amd 11 senators voted against one of the most slsm dunk US policies of my lifetime. And that list of people is a whos who of faux outrage, pretendimg QAnon is real, wacky people. Its those people winning the primaries. This next congress vote has so little to do with Biden or the dems, it is a referendumb on if you want your country run by people willing to lie about the election or dumb enough to believe the QAnon BS. Same way the next fed election will have nothing to do with the Dem and everything to do with yes or no on the Trump insanity and drama. We’re not doing great over here, I assume it’s bloody similar the world over. The wheels of capitalism turn and churn, people get annoyed depending where the wheel is at. We’ve had multiple ‘never again’ market shocks not just in my lifetime but since my adolescence I’m somewhat running low in sympathy, every time we’re in periods of stability/prosperity folks fervently reject meaningful structural reforms in various domains as ‘the system works’ only for the same people to moan incessantly that they’re having a bad time when there’s a slip. | ||
|
Husyelt
United States829 Posts
This party talks to their constituents like children. Where’s the R’s Fetterman? Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, Biden by 7 million, next presidential race is going to be a disaster without a moderate candidate. It’s well past time to bury this party. Fox and Rush have dumbed down entire generations with their anti intellectual empty rhetoric. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13850 Posts
On May 22 2022 14:45 Vivax wrote: What's the incentive to work when savers get punished and real estate prices are artificially inflated by companies whose 'work' is to make you pay for a roof over your head and their owners skill was to be born first with more opportunites. That dread about the future is quite common under these circumstances. Can you not dig out Bernie again? Granted, still limited landlordship should be possible for individuals so they don't have to work until death, just not an entire business built around it. We tried with Bernie twice. They hate the idea of solving any problems so much they're willing to violate all their rules and processes to make sure it's never an option. They think the center can hold and that they will always win because they are the party of indifference instead of hate. I don't think the nation survives a election where one side loses the popular vote by more than 20 million yet somehow gets to control everything. | ||
KwarK
United States42487 Posts
On May 22 2022 17:20 Taelshin wrote: 40 billion to Ukraine... that's nearly what would have been spent in Afghanistan. Well done everyone. This administration is really living up to the hype. Didn’t Afghanistan cost like 2t? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10421 Posts
On May 22 2022 19:54 WombaT wrote: I’ve seen many a quote twisted out of recognition, in this case no I don’t see how else to read those words? Unless one wants to claim this isn’t who ‘pro-abortion activists’ are. 1. Foetuses as fuel source - Check 2. Liberals are to blame - Check. Unless that’s not what ‘pro abortion activists’ refers to, which seems doubtful. If she’d simply testified that foetuses end up incinerated in various ways, and this should be outlawed, hey go for it. Some staunch pro-choice people would find it distasteful. Merely being technically true, while implying something entirely different in scale and application, and attributing it to evil folks shrouded in the language of violence is absolutely GOP tactics 101. It’s in the wheelhouse of the Dems and indeed most political parties I’m familiar with, although rarely to such ridiculous levels. You must see this, it’s attaching your political enemies with heinous morals. Obama’s death camps all over again, it need not matter that it doesn’t remotely reflect the reality of the situation, it’s making people believe that this is something the opposition desires, or is capable of. + Show Spoiler + Doc, aside from being a PBU wanted his cake and wanted to eat it to. Refuse to budge an inch on anything, then wanting people to entertain his pet issues, then complaining about partisanship. I could send the guy a video of Donald Trump schlupping his significant other and he’d go ‘ok that’s all well and good but have you seen this story about Hunter’s laptop on freedom andtruth.net?’ Like come on. As I said in the ban thread I would welcome more posters of a conservative disposition, but his posting habits were irritating at best, utterly obnoxious at worst. So where does the farming come in? Everyone else, KwarK, Liquid`Drone, gobbledygook, Gorsameth, etc. was able to appropriately criticize her for implying that burning fetuses provided a significant source of energy and not invent an extra layer of farming dead babies for fuel. It seems to be NewSunshine's MO to provide a full re-write of what people say to the point that the original quote is unrecognizable and then defend it with "You're just arguing semantics." It's something he does repeatedly, for example a few months ago in a completely different conversation: https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27900449 I even asked him at the end of my post why he couldn't transcribe a single sentence quotation but still insisted on using quotation marks: On February 04 2022 08:28 BlackJack wrote: Did you do this intentionally? It seems like every time I engage with you this happens and then it becomes an annoying conversation over semantics, which is why I was initially going to ignore this post. But now I am not interested in the semantics as much on your take of why you were unable to transcribe a simple quote but still insisted on using quotation marks. I still don't know if he is doing it unintentionally or if he just thinks it's a good tactic. Hopefully the former because I don't think it's a very good tactic. It undermines the credibility of the criticism - if what they said is so bad you shouldn't have to reword it to make it sound worse. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 22 2022 17:20 Taelshin wrote: 40 billion to Ukraine... that's nearly what would have been spent in Afghanistan. Well done everyone. This administration is really living up to the hype. It's a regrettable expense, but pretty pedestrian by the standards of annual military expenditures in the US. It's only somewhat larger than the annual growth in VA office expenditures, which this year looks like it might go up to $300 billion (a $30B increase). Better to spend on active conflicts than on the residual expenses from the previous ones. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Her claims: Bodies thrown in medical waste bins and, in places like Washington, DC, burned to power the lights of the city’s homes and streets. Let that image sit with you for a moment. The next time you turn on the light, think of the incinerators, and what we’re doing to ourselves so callously and so numbly. Always and everywhere, the convictions of pro-abortion activists are damaging, deadly, and devastating to the fabric of American democracy. To speak for the violence of abortion is to speak for injustice—there’s no other way to put it. Reality: Nearly 93 per cent of the district’s power is generated from natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants, according to the DC Policy Centre, a nonpartisan thinktank. The remaining 7 per cent is generated from wind and other renewable sources, which do not include foetuses. I don't need to paraphrase for that to be a melodramatic fabrication designed to malign people who are pro-choice. The idea that fetuses comprise any part of a city's power generation is just patently false. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21609 Posts
Without abortions you will still get stillbirths or miscarriages and the fetus from those would, presumably, be handled the exact same way. Outlawing abortions doesn't stop your lights from being powered by burned fetus's. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 23 2022 03:00 Gorsameth wrote: (One of) The dumb part is that it doesn't even have anything to do with abortions. Without abortions you will still get stillbirths or miscarriages and the fetus from those would, presumably, be handled the exact same way. Outlawing abortions doesn't stop your lights from being powered by burned fetus's. In the same fantasy world where outlawing abortions defeats the fetus-power industry, Big Fetus, you also have a power structure that is dependent upon the energy being theoretically generated, and have a vested interest in increasing the number of abortions, and collecting them to burn for energy. It's called internal logic. If there's some nefarious scheme where babies are being burned for energy, you have to have people who devote their time to maintaining the energy supply (the "pro-abortion" activists). This is what the GOP would have you believe. And even the most basic claim in their house of cards fails to withstand basic scrutiny. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13850 Posts
Not like we were going to use any of the things anyway. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5594 Posts
On May 22 2022 12:54 KwarK wrote: Fetuses are not keeping the lights on. They’re just not. That's obviously not the point of her statement. She used that as an example of what she sees as a distasteful or inhuman way of treating fetuses. It's like when people talk about the Nazis turning bodies of Jews into soap. It's an example of how cruel and inhuman they were, not a conspiracy about the Third Reich being all about producing cheap soap. Banning Doc is bs, by the way. You want this thread to turn into more of a useless echo chamber than it already is? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9602 Posts
On May 23 2022 05:12 Elroi wrote: That's obviously not the point of her statement. She used that as an example of what she sees as a distasteful or inhuman way of treating fetuses. It's like when people talk about the Nazis turning bodies of Jews into soap. It's an example of how cruel and inhuman they were, not a conspiracy about the Third Reich being all about producing cheap soap. Its still total nonsense. Is it distasteful or inhuman to mop up blood that was spilt on the floor? What about other medical waste, is there a particular level of respect this woman would like us to have for a tumour, or a pus filled cyst? Banning Doc is bs, by the way. You want this thread to turn into more of a useless echo chamber than it already is? He was a previously banned user, attempting to sidestep a ban with a new account is against the rules. | ||
|
PtossParty
20 Posts
On May 22 2022 17:20 Taelshin wrote: 40 billion to Ukraine... that's nearly what would have been spent in Afghanistan. Well done everyone. This administration is really living up to the hype. This is a lie. It was about 2 Trillion in Afghanistan. Not 40 billion. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42487 Posts
On May 23 2022 04:46 Sermokala wrote: With lend lease the surviving equipment is paid back so that's not even a 40b loss. Let alone the advertising the nation gets from our equipment being used in the field for soft power and for future arms sales. How many m777s and javalin "kills every Russian style tank including the ones rolling off the line in 2022" misses will be sold off of this. Not like we were going to use any of the things anyway. It’s worth remembering that there is a strategic need to overproduce military hardware in peacetime so that the infrastructure needed for wartime is maintained. Let’s say that year 1 you order a bunch of tanks. Year 2 you don’t need to order tanks because you still have the year 1 ones. Year 3 same. Year 4 you go to war and lose half your tanks. Unfortunately the factory that makes them closed down in year 2 because you didn’t order any. The reason the US is so free with its military aid is that the real cost of that aid is much lower than it appears on paper. They were always going to pay for the hardware to be produced because there was judged to be a strategic need to prop up that industry. The US either gives away surplus hardware or gives away money to be spent at US arms manufacturers. The number given is the value but the actual impact on the US budget is negligible. They always planned on spending that money. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15579 Posts
It’s hard to even call this a cost. You could argue supplying Ukraine and having them be the ones to use it against Russia is actually an improvement. Avoiding direct military conflict but still causing significant damage to Russia is the best case scenario. There is no reason to be salty about us “aiding” Ukraine. If anything they are the ones aiding us. | ||
| ||
