|
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 |
Northern Ireland26505 Posts
Yes once, this article. It doesn’t tempt me to return.
How someone so seemingly intelligent and articulate can write such utter, utter bollocks is beyond me.
‘Leftism is a type of mental retardation, according to which the latest ‘open’ agenda constitutes real historical changeQ’
It’s a ridiculous amount of padding into the core argument which is the left (all of it) are hegemonic liberals and the MAGA crowd are agitators against hegemonic structures.
Which is such nonsense I’m not even sure where to go with it. The MAGA crowd merely want a resumption of the world where these hegemonic structures benefitted them, there’s no revolutionary systemic critique coming out of that sector.
There’s no real push against capitalist hegemony, or globalism just particular elements of it they don’t like. But can’t actually prevent within the very confines of the systems they like, so they spin in circles.
|
United States10357 Posts
*cracks hands* looks like it time for another election coverage for tonight, Ohio Issue 1 is going to be voted on today. Yes means it means it will be harder to make amendments to the Ohio constitution (50% -> 60% vote needed). No maintains the status quo. This is effectively a test of whether right to abortion will pass in November.
Polling seems very split, but a lot of undecided. 600k early vote would tend to favor "No."
|
|
|
On August 09 2023 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Wow. Sarcasm?
I'm pretty sure captainwaffles is a Stalinist, which happens to have a lot of overlap with MAGACommunism since they're both far-right Authoritarian butcherings of leftist ideology and they both don't believe in the concept of empiricism and instead treat facts the same as strongly held opinions.
|
On August 09 2023 05:08 StasisField wrote:I'm pretty sure captainwaffles is a Stalinist, which happens to have a lot of overlap with MAGACommunism since they're both far-right Authoritarian butcherings of leftist ideology and they both don't believe in the concept of empiricism and instead treat facts the same as strongly held opinions.
Ah, okay. The idea that that is a "good" read is just... yikes.
|
Captainwaffles do you go by spammi by any chance?
|
On August 09 2023 09:59 Wala.Revolution wrote:
Captainwaffles do you go by spammi by any chance?
No, this is my only name on the internet.
|
United States10357 Posts
On August 08 2023 23:42 FlaShFTW wrote:
*cracks hands* looks like it time for another election coverage for tonight, Ohio Issue 1 is going to be voted on today. Yes means it means it will be harder to make amendments to the Ohio constitution (50% -> 60% vote needed). No maintains the status quo. This is effectively a test of whether right to abortion will pass in November.
Polling seems very split, but a lot of undecided. 600k early vote would tend to favor "No."
Well, I was late on this but Issue 1 fails easily, with 77% of the vote in and 56% voting NO. Looks great for pro-choice camp come November.
|
On August 09 2023 10:56 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2023 23:42 FlaShFTW wrote:
*cracks hands* looks like it time for another election coverage for tonight, Ohio Issue 1 is going to be voted on today. Yes means it means it will be harder to make amendments to the Ohio constitution (50% -> 60% vote needed). No maintains the status quo. This is effectively a test of whether right to abortion will pass in November.
Polling seems very split, but a lot of undecided. 600k early vote would tend to favor "No." Well, I was late on this but Issue 1 fails easily, with 77% of the vote in and 56% voting NO. Looks great for pro-choice camp come November.
Thank you for the update! That's very good news.
|
|
|
United States43818 Posts
Lol
It’s a literal statement of policy, not a coup. Just “we don’t luke that you’re not being a good friend. If you continue to not be friendly we won’t be friends but if you start acting friendly we will be”.
The alternative would be absurd. Would you have US foreign policy be “we don’t care whether you’re a good friend to us or not, ride or die homies 4 lyfe”. Why would the US ride or die with random politicians in Pakistan? Their relationship is with the country, not a specific president.
|
An rt.com article that mentions a "Russian Military Operation".
Ya I will pass.
Next time please cite North Korea State Media please.
|
On August 11 2023 19:12 Sadist wrote:
An rt.com article that mentions a "Russian Military Operation".
Ya I will pass.
Next time please cite North Korea State Media please.
I just want to mention that parts in a war will always use words to frame it to their advantage. This is certainly done by the west too. In offence, you will more likely hear about "coalition force" and "operation" rather than "invasion force" and "attack".
|
On August 11 2023 14:05 captainwaffles wrote:To no one's surprise, the US was behind the recent ouster of the President of Pakistan. US told Pakistan to remove Imran Khan from power – Intercept Washington took issue with the PM’s neutral stance on Russia’s military operation in Ukraine https://www.rt.com/news/581067-us-pressured-pakistan-khan-ouster/
You... are aware that your source for this is Russian state media, right?
|
|
|
|
|
United States43818 Posts
It wasn't regime change by the US at all.
|
Well it's clear the US orchestrated the replacement of Pakistan's PM through "carrots and sticks." If replacing the leader while maintaining the existing govt structure isn't "regime change," then Donald Trump didn't try to "overthrow" the US govt (as required for him to have engaged in "sedition" or "insurrection").
|
On August 12 2023 12:26 King_Charles_III wrote:
Well it's clear the US orchestrated the replacement of Pakistan's PM through "carrots and sticks." If replacing the leader while maintaining the existing govt structure isn't "regime change," then Donald Trump didn't try to "overthrow" the US govt (as required for him to have engaged in "sedition" or "insurrection").
No. It isn't the same. A vote of no confidence is not the same as a hoard of stooges invading congress.
Do I agree with what the US did? From the little I've read, probably not. But it's the very definition of using diplomacy and soft power to get what you want. They didn't bribe anyone, they didn't send in covert ops to assassinate anyone. They didn't fund militias to start a revolution. They went through the correct channels to tell their friendly contacts that the US wanted X result and in exchange, the US would do Y. Whereas if X didn't happen, they'd do Z.
You should probably also know that motions of no confidence are quite common everywhere with parliamentary democracies. Macron narrowly survived one last year in France. The Dutch government fell apart and resigned before it got that far (in March this year), but a day later there was a motion of no confidence scheduled. The Brits have their own system, but it's not too dissimilar and led to Boris getting thrown out, replaced by Liz Truss and then her getting thrown out soon after for Rish! to become PM.
All of this is considered the normal functioning of these parliamentary systems.
Now I don't actually know enough about the Pakistani system nor do I know enough about Khan's removal to say that everything that happened was above the table. But what that intercept article describes is the deft application of soft power.
|
Deft application of soft power sure, but I'm not sure that tells us whether it was justified. One might also say "meddling in Pakistan's internal affairs via coercion." There's nothing inherently correct or proper or normal about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
