EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3672
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On June 14 2022 22:39 JimmiC wrote: It is great to see. I would love to see a progressive win the leadership, the US needs a drastic move left to even get to center, I just do not see it happening. Would love to be wrong. I get the pessimism, especially because I tend to subscribe to it, but I really do think that the progressives will do well in November. If they do, I can absolutely see AOC doing really well in 2024, should she choose to run | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 14 2022 23:12 plasmidghost wrote: I get the pessimism, especially because I tend to subscribe to it, but I really do think that the progressives will do well in November. If they do, I can absolutely see AOC doing really well in 2024, should she choose to run an AOC presidency must coincide with a progressive majority in congress for it to matter is the key. I think that is more likely to happen in 2028 or 2032 and she should wait. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On June 14 2022 23:18 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: an AOC presidency must coincide with a progressive majority in congress for it to matter is the key. I think that is more likely to happen in 2028 or 2032 and she should wait. AOC could reschedule marijuana and cancel student loans on day 1. The executive has a ton of power. It’s just that Biden won’t use it. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On June 15 2022 00:16 Mohdoo wrote: AOC could reschedule marijuana and cancel student loans on day 1. The executive has a ton of power. It’s just that Biden won’t use it. I believe she would actually do it too. I really do wonder what the political landscape is going to look like in 2024, especially since I'm sure the moderate Dems will get washed this cycle | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35170 Posts
On June 15 2022 01:11 plasmidghost wrote: I believe she would actually do it too. I really do wonder what the political landscape is going to look like in 2024, especially since I'm sure the moderate Dems will get washed this cycle Probably more "we're gonna put up more milk toast Dems that you should vote for, despite consistently not voting for them as much as we want, and don't even think about putting up any progressives, because we won't vote for them!" with a side of "vote blue now matter who" with zero awareness. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 15 2022 00:16 Mohdoo wrote: AOC could reschedule marijuana and cancel student loans on day 1. The executive has a ton of power. It’s just that Biden won’t use it. But can that executive over reach survive a conservative supreme court and will it survive past the president? America's problems are rooted in a legislative body that is intent on not governing. The solution to that isn't a dictator to do their job. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On June 15 2022 01:20 Gahlo wrote: Probably more "we're gonna put up more milk toast Dems that you should vote for, despite consistently not voting for them as much as we want, and don't even think about putting up any progressives, because we won't vote for them!" with a side of "vote blue now matter who" with zero awareness. I'm imagining the Dems pushing someone like Pete Buttigieg and getting washed in a landslide if this ends up being the route | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On June 15 2022 01:35 JimmiC wrote: I do not understand why people act like it is "the dems" putting up whoever. Sure the party has some control but the voters in the primaries have more. "The Reps" did not want Trump, he just got the most votes and then they all jumped in line. Rescheduling pot is a no brainer, I cannot believe it has not happened yet. It is super popular with all Dems and anyone who be remotely "independent". I think the messaging the mainline Dem commentators and party contributions give to the typical centrist candidates could be more powerful than the voters during the primary | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22102 Posts
But I question if they would actually overrule a voter majority if it came to that, throwing out the preference of your own voters is a great way to lose the actual election. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11752 Posts
On June 15 2022 01:48 Gorsameth wrote: The Democrats have, in theory, more control over their candidate because of Super Delegates. But that is most likely to effect messaging during the primary where they declare a preference and their votes then already get counted for said candidate in reporting, which happened in Bernie vs Hillary from what I remember. But I question if they would actually overrule a voter majority if it came to that, throwing out the preference of your own voters is a great way to lose the actual election. The weird thing is that this should be the main political conflict. Between progressives and conservatives. But that is all within one party in the US, and everything gets distorted because you have an additional party consisting of fascists, regressives and clowns that controls about half of the institutions. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4742 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
At approximately 11:40AM CT on June 8, 2022, an incident occurred at the Freeport LNG liquefaction plant on Quintana Island, Texas that resulted in the release of LNG, leading to the formation and ignition of a natural gas vapor cloud, and subsequent fire at the facility. As reported previously, there were no injuries, and at no time did the incident pose a threat to the surrounding community. In accordance with Freeport LNG's safety design parameters, the LNG vapor cloud dispersion and ignition thereof were at all times contained within the fence line of the liquefaction facility, lasting approximately 10 seconds. The fire and associated smoke visible thereafter were from the burning of materials in and around the location where the incident occurred, such as piping insulation and cabling. With the assistance of local area emergency response personnel, the resultant fire was extinguished approximately 40 minutes after the initial incident. While the burning of those materials resulted in carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compound emissions, these were of limited quantity due to the short duration of the fire and not at levels that posed any immediate risk to Freeport LNG personnel or the surrounding community. There was no release of any other chemicals or substances from the plant during the event. Water used to suppress the subsequent fire was captured on site, and will be tested and confirmed free of any harmful contaminants before being released or removed for proper disposal. ... At this time, completion of all necessary repairs and a return to full plant operations is not expected until late 2022. Given the relatively contained area of the facility physically impacted by the incident, a resumption of partial operations is targeted to be achieved in approximately 90 days, once the safety and security of doing so can be assured, and all regulatory clearances are obtained. Source Hopefully this will help keep my heating & electricity bills down by not sending the natural gas we can't spare to foreigners so corporations can earn some extra money. Small consolation given that gasoline is over $5/gal and diesel is worse, but I don't need to be bleeding even more money right now. Would've been nice to have Biden do this rather than mother nature though. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35170 Posts
On June 15 2022 03:28 JimmiC wrote: Odd that your source does not point out that the other 4 who voted against it were the MAGA crew of Cawthorne Greene Massie and Roy. I'm not sure of their reasoning and have not had time to look up another article that is not so blatantly partisan. It literally only talks about the Dems who voted against it. I hope that is not where you are getting your "news" from. I do think it is a questionable vote, as it is anytime you vote with Greene and Cawthorne. Edit: Also, this is from back in April, did you google "bad stuff about AOC"? Yeah, Windows also gave me a popup for this site telling me the firewall blocked some stuff. Seems sketch. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On June 15 2022 04:07 Gahlo wrote: Yeah, Windows also gave me a popup for this site telling me the firewall blocked some stuff. Seems sketch. Same here, that was concerning. Advise y'all to not click the link | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
*PS how do some of you wizards directly embed stuff from Twitter | ||
| ||
