EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4218
| 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 | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28792 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 10 2024 10:53 Razyda wrote: Also it seems to me that dude wrote a lot of words to end up with confirming my point: Yeah it's hard to take serious people's concerns that Trump is going to round people up into camps when they also want to round people up into camps. This guy might have been facetious in his post but Mohdoo was literally advocating for people to be rounded up and removed for society for the mortal sin of refusing a covid vaccine. Meanwhile the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 (so there is no mistaking this is partisan) against a New York regulator that used their power to try to get companies to stop doing business with a gun right's organization. Of course if they did similar to a LGBT advocacy group the outrage would have been instantaneous. Soon SCOTUS will decide on the case where the Biden white house used to have weekly meetings with Twitter and other social media companies where they would discuss which users and journalists were spreading the wrong narrative and which accounts needed to be banned. The list goes on and on... Farage's bank account being closed by Coutts, Justin Trudeau seizing the bank accounts of peaceful protestors, etc. etc. Like I said earlier, nobody here has any issue with the government or other institutions being weaponized to blacklist, silence, or censor their political enemies. They only take issue with the idea that maybe Trump will do it too if he is re-elected. | ||
|
Suibne
44 Posts
It is honestly an utterly stupid point he made. If you can't deal being made fun of, then don't engage in debates and then take unhinged positions. People may throw your own 'snarky' comments sarcastically back at you. Trump already rounded up his political enemies and put them in jail. Namely Cohen and Parnav. Trump weaponized the DoJ against them and locked them both up with unusually high punishments for crimes they committed on Trump's behalf. He also tried to go after Comey and others, but failed. He also tried to push his attorney general to investigate Clinton. But they refused. People talk about that Trump may not actually do it, because he is just saying it now because he is angry. But he already did it. BTW, many Jan6 people are serving in jail right now. Is that the same thing as putting them in concentration camps? Do you think that we should put MAGA granny in jail? Give her cult deprogramming? Or herd her up into a concentration camp? I mean this one: What do we do with people like that? There's other MAGA granny's who have come out and said they were brainwashed. I don't mean them. But that's also evidence that treatment is needed. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45776 Posts
1. Because she was in a relationship with a special prosecutor who used to work alongside her, on the same team (he is no longer on her team); 2. Because she "made a passionate speech in defense of hiring a "Black man" at a historic Black church in Atlanta on Martin Luther King Jr. weekend" ( https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-election-interference-case-judge-mcafee-plans-keep-working ). It seems that Judge Scott McAfee wants to keep the trial moving forward, but the Trump team wants to appeal the decisions and prolong the case for as long as possible (ideally, for them, until after the November election and/or after the January inauguration, if Trump wins the election). Is that roughly accurate? I guess my real question is... why are those 2 motions legitimate reasons to disqualify the prosecutor, in the first place? It's not like the prosecutor was in a relationship with Trump's defense attorney, where there could be a perceived conflict of interest, and it's not like caring about black people means you can't accurately prosecute Donald Trump. Also, a broader question: Are there systems in place to prevent someone from repeatedly filing nonsensical motions to dismiss for any reason, and then appealing the decisions to prolong the inevitable? Is there anything stopping the Trump team from filing a third and fourth ridiculous motion, to push this trial back even further? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22311 Posts
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-georgia-case-fulton-county-halted/ | ||
|
T1Tony
15 Posts
This law firm's site says that Trump can appeal on account of the jury being biased or having committed some form of misconduct. He will appeal the conviction, and they will overturn it. That's my prediction. | ||
KwarK
United States43968 Posts
Want to put money on it? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18285 Posts
On June 08 2024 05:46 Razyda wrote: GH reading last few of your posts I must say that it is somewhat shameless of you to call anyone a fascist. So once you dealt with Trump, what would you do with, as you said "hoard of white supremacists"? Keep them in a camps? For what is worth though I think you are actually right on the money and ever since the guilty verdict, Trump becoming president is out of question whether he wins election or not. Camps are a fascist solution. Proper communists send such undesirable elements of society to gulags  | ||
|
KwarK
United States43968 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18285 Posts
On June 16 2024 07:43 KwarK wrote: It’s only a gulag if it’s from the gulag archipelago region of Russia. Otherwise it’s just sparkling slavery. True. Maybe when the Russians finally get rid of Putin and his successor realizes the country is bankrupt, they'll be willing to sell some more land to you so you can create geographically correct gulags in your communist utopia! | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
Matt Taibbi made an opening statement and among other things said that Walter Cronkite was twice voted the most trusted man in America and back in the day the mainstream media used to report the story and let the chips fall where they may, whereas now they find out what their viewers want to hear and work backwards to find the story, i.e. Right wing stuff on Fox or Left wing stuff on MSNBC. Malcolm Gladwell decided to make it his main contention that Matt Taibbi reminisces about the old days because it was when white men ran the world and he simply wishes to return to a place where white men dominated the newsroom. Repeatedly he hinted that Matt Taibbi was a racist that just want to return to the 1950s before blacks had equal rights. Not only is it ridiculously inflammatory to imply someone is a racist in such a way (Taibbi is part Asian/Native btw), but it's just nonsensical. Taibbi liked the journalistic standards of that era therefore he must also like Jim Crow of that era or the glass ceiling for women? What the fuck? It's just illogical bullshit. Yet Gladwell thought this was one of his best arguments that beared repeating. It's especially sad for me because I've read most of Gladwell's books and I listen to his podcast and I generally find his work to be interesting and entertaining. I've recommended him to a lot of people. But even someone brilliant enough to be a NYT best selling author many times over is apparently not above these SJW tactics of labeling people that disagree with you some form of racist/misogynist or any other -ist. Gladwell and his teammate ended up losing the debate by the biggest margin in the history of Munk debates. I guess to his credit Gladwell came out with a podcast reflecting on his humiliating loss in the debate and acknowledges that he ignored the nuance of what Taibbi was saying and instead felt compelled to get on his high horse and wave his "woke flag." Ironically Gladwell (himself a journalist) completely missing Taibbi's points and instead pushing a false narrative that he was a racist was the strongest argument Taibbi's side could have hoped for. There's not too much point to this post other than a rant mourning the loss of a time when we can have polite public discourse without otherizing the other side with terrible names. It seems the "racist" card is being thrown around in the Palestine thread and Euro Politics thread as well at this moment so I thought this fit with the theme. /endrant | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26762 Posts
Although where the various ‘isms’ come in I don’t think often comes in the ‘I look down on people from x group’ forms of bigotry. It’s the pulling the rug out of a familiar, understood order of things and a shifting into something different and unfamiliar, would be my best estimation. Something people are either not especially comfortable admitting, or an unease that they themselves haven’t identified or can articulate. If I hand picked a bunch of folks, I imagine very few would dislike women per se. But I assume there’d be a non-negligible amount who say, felt uneasy having a female boss, or their female partner earning more than them. To take one minor example, as a big Some of which I don’t think are necessarily lies or untruths, but I think ultimately what lies behind them at the core is ‘this is a traditionally male space and I don’t l like it not being so’ | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1151 Posts
Maybe when the Russians finally get rid of Putin Russia is pretty f*cked. A society that went from tsars to Lenin to Stalin Communism leading to Cold War Communism, having about 9 fun years of post communism poverty when the oligarchs ransacked the land...but with drunk Yelsin and now the 25th year of putin. :/ | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On June 18 2024 21:41 WombaT wrote: If I hand picked a bunch of folks, I imagine very few would dislike women per se. But I assume there’d be a non-negligible amount who say, felt uneasy having a female boss, or their female partner earning more than them. To take one minor example, as a big Some of which I don’t think are necessarily lies or untruths, but I think ultimately what lies behind them at the core is ‘this is a traditionally male space and I don’t l like it not being so’ I don't watch football very often so I can't comment on how things are in that space, but I do watch a lot of tennis and frankly there are so many female 'diversity hires' these days who simply aren't good at the job, it's no wonder people push back against it. It's a bit of a chicken and egg conundrum, since without giving women opportunities for these jobs it's unlikely there will be a decent pool of female talent that has the skills and experience to perform, but at the same time if you keep hiring folks who just aren't good enough for equality's sake or whatever, you just end up alienating the audiences and incite the sort of pushback that leads to women not wanting to be in that space in the first place. No easy solutions to something like this for sure, but blaming anything negative on misogyny and outdated conservative thinking or whatever is definitely not going to help anyone. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9843 Posts
On June 18 2024 21:41 WombaT wrote: Perhaps the overall debate was a car crash, but I think there’s also a rather large grain of truth in Gladwell’s contention. I may check it out in time but generally I’m not a massive fan of debates in this era as they end up adversarial and not especially enlightening, and it sounds like this is the direction this one went. Although where the various ‘isms’ come in I don’t think often comes in the ‘I look down on people from x group’ forms of bigotry. It’s the pulling the rug out of a familiar, understood order of things and a shifting into something different and unfamiliar, would be my best estimation. Something people are either not especially comfortable admitting, or an unease that they themselves haven’t identified or can articulate. If I hand picked a bunch of folks, I imagine very few would dislike women per se. But I assume there’d be a non-negligible amount who say, felt uneasy having a female boss, or their female partner earning more than them. To take one minor example, as a big Some of which I don’t think are necessarily lies or untruths, but I think ultimately what lies behind them at the core is ‘this is a traditionally male space and I don’t l like it not being so’ This is a genuine post from the Forest forum I frequent: Lets not exaggerate here. Every position in any industry needs to have the very best people on merit. Woman presenters are some of the very best. Gabby Logan, Laura Woods. Fact remains, a woman's voice isn't suitable for commentating on football. The high pitched screeching is fucking woeful, and anyone who enjoys that is swallowing a woke pill, rather than what's the best quality available. Forget the content of what is being said, its the voice. And for that reason, women should never have a commentating role, or co-commentating. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18285 Posts
On June 19 2024 00:23 Salazarz wrote: The way that forum post is worded is not particularly nice, but I don't think that's necessarily a discriminatory or misogynist or whatever -ist position, to be honest. I don't usually enjoy female vocals in rock music, I don't think that's sexist in the slightest, and it's not that different from the commentator issue... I think? It's cultural though. I am willing to bet that you put that Forest fan in Brazil (or anywhere in South America, for that matter) and he won't enjoy the frenetic hyper hyper hyper commenting either. It's often just as high pitched. I think that we're not used to women commenting on sports tv, and therefore we hear it and KNEEJERK into saying "women's voices have no place in commentary, regardless of their content". Tbf, SC2 had a lot of the same pushback against Zombiegrub until she was "normalised" and now nobody complains anymore about Zombiegrub casting high profile matches. And if we're going to complain about pitch, Tasteless and Pig are almost certainly more screechy than Zombiegrub... | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9843 Posts
On June 19 2024 00:23 Salazarz wrote: The way that forum post is worded is not particularly nice, but I don't think that's necessarily a discriminatory or misogynist or whatever -ist position, to be honest. I don't usually enjoy female vocals in rock music, I don't think that's sexist in the slightest, and it's not that different from the commentator issue... I think? Its the insinuation that anyone who doesn't hate it has swallowed a 'woke pill' that pretty much does it though, isn't it? Its a conspiracy theory, not just a complaint about women commentators, its that women are trying to destroy everything men love. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On June 19 2024 00:44 Jockmcplop wrote: Its the insinuation that anyone who doesn't hate it has swallowed a 'woke pill' that pretty much does it though, isn't it? Its a conspiracy theory, not just a complaint about women commentators, its that women are trying to destroy everything men love. The same goes for the insinuation that anyone who doesn't like women commentators -- for whatever reason -- is a scumbag sexist and their opinion is invalid, though. And at least in some circles, that line of thinking is quite common, so it's not that surprising to see people roiling against it. Also, their insinuation isn't that women are trying to destroy everything men love, more like 'wokies' are trying to ruining everything men love by pushing women into doing things they have 'no business doing' (which is a silly thing to believe also, although not 100% unmerited tbh and also different from 'women are destroying everything' thinking). Women being put into various roles because they are women rather than because they are good at said role definitely happens, and while affirmative action and variations of thereof aren't always bad, it does tend to generate friction. On June 19 2024 00:41 Acrofales wrote: It's cultural though. I am willing to bet that you put that Forest fan in Brazil (or anywhere in South America, for that matter) and he won't enjoy the frenetic hyper hyper hyper commenting either. It's often just as high pitched. I think that we're not used to women commenting on sports tv, and therefore we hear it and KNEEJERK into saying "women's voices have no place in commentary, regardless of their content". Tbf, SC2 had a lot of the same pushback against Zombiegrub until she was "normalised" and now nobody complains anymore about Zombiegrub casting high profile matches. And if we're going to complain about pitch, Tasteless and Pig are almost certainly more screechy than Zombiegrub... Well, sure, it's mostly a 'learned' thing -- going back to my dislike for female vocals in metal music, I'm not going to pretend that male voices make objectively the 'better' metal vocals or whatever, but even if it's simply a learned/cultural thing, that doesn't make my preference for male vocals in metal music invalid, does it? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45776 Posts
On June 18 2024 23:19 Jockmcplop wrote: This is a genuine post from the Forest forum I frequent: On June 19 2024 00:23 Salazarz wrote: The way that forum post is worded is not particularly nice, but I don't think that's necessarily a discriminatory or misogynist or whatever -ist position, to be honest. I don't usually enjoy female vocals in rock music, I don't think that's sexist in the slightest, and it's not that different from the commentator issue... I think? In regards to that Forest forum post: It's one thing to say that a certain commentator's voice is annoying, but it's another to make the general claim that "a woman's voice isn't suitable for commentating on football". Really? None of them? Not all women's voices are the same, and so the automatic dismissal of all female commentators, without even listening to a new woman's voice, is sexist. Also, "high pitched screeching" is a bad stereotype, and suggesting "anyone who enjoys that is swallowing a woke pill" about something that's completely subjective is stupid. | ||
| ||
