| 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 | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10825 Posts
How do you imagine working together with the R's right now? The immigration/border deal was a perfect example of how it was tried but was shut down just "because" by the republicans. It's absolutly impossible to work with such lunatics. It's like trying to work with the hardcore progressive/communist larpers... Except that these actually have very little power outside of very limited spheres and barely any when it comes to actually get people elected. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45176 Posts
On July 15 2024 21:46 gobbledydook wrote: I don’t think pro life vs pro choice was ever defined by individual belief. It has always been about whether you want everyone to have a choice of abortion, or whether you believe the life of the unborn trumps that choice. It was never about what your own choice would be, if you became pregnant. That's fine. Speaking in terms of what *everyone* ought to do, Introvert's assertion that pro-life and pro-choice are compatible is still wrong, and his assertion that Democrats should compromise/concede the pro-choice position just to appeal to Republican voters is still very controversial. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22007 Posts
On July 15 2024 12:23 Gahlo wrote: R: Be reasonable and meet me in the middle. D tries to work together R steps back R: Be reasonable and meet me in the middle Repeat as needed. Tale as old as time. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10825 Posts
These are not serious people. Pro-Choice up until a certain point in the pregnancy is the only non-authoritarian solution and thats a non starter for the republican party (not necessary it's full electorate). If this is a non-starter, what is there even to comrpomise about? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On July 15 2024 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's fine. Speaking in terms of what *everyone* ought to do, Introvert's assertion that pro-life and pro-choice are compatible is still wrong, and his assertion that Democrats should compromise/concede the pro-choice position just to appeal to Republican voters is still very controversial. To me the confusing part is this is the same party that desperately tried to rationalize keeping Manchin in the party. Even after he opposed filibuster reform and voted to put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court (which led to the overturning of Roe v Wade). I don't see what about the Democrat party precludes them from having members opposed to reproductive rights any more than members that oppose other ostensible Democrat policy/positions. Why wouldn't Democrats sacrifice a candidate supporting reproductive rights for another seat or few like they do other policies/positions? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4866 Posts
On July 15 2024 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's fine. Speaking in terms of what *everyone* ought to do, Introvert's assertion that pro-life and pro-choice are compatible is still wrong, and his assertion that Democrats should compromise/concede the pro-choice position just to appeal to Republican voters is still very controversial. I will try this one more time: you don't even have to agree. You csn agree to disagree! You can agree on some things and work together on those! A pro-choice Dem can say, "we as a party are generally pro-choice, but I welcome pro-lifers to come and advocate their positions while I work with you on things like expanding social services and addressing racial injustice." Obviously you don't have to surrender all your principles but dems could definitely have a bigger tent, ans given how in danger they say we are, probably should. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45176 Posts
On July 15 2024 22:56 Introvert wrote: I will try this one more time: you don't even have to agree. You csn agree to disagree! You can agree on some things and work together on those! A pro-choice Dem can say, "we as a party are generally pro-choice, but I welcome pro-lifers to come and advocate their positions while I work with you on things like expanding social services and addressing racial injustice." Obviously you don't have to surrender all your principles but dems could definitely have a bigger tent, ans given how in danger they say we are, probably should. ...That's literally what I had originally said, and you had mocked me for saying it. I had written this: "maybe a universally-enforcing pro-life Democrat doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Democratic party when it comes to abortion, but agrees enough on other issues that they still identify more as a Democrat than as a Republican". And I also wrote that we could "appeal to the other non-abortion similarities". And then you responded with this: "You are displaying the exact thing I'm talking about. And you will be able to do this every issue. I guess Trump winning is more acceptable than compromises and allowing people with differing views into the tent. Or maybe people who talk like this don't actually believe what they are saying about Trump." Yes, two people can both be Democrats and not agree on everything. That's exactly why we were all scratching our heads when you asserted that Democrats are gate-keeping anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of the official party platform, and when you asserted that it's a shame that Democrats can't compromise or concede anything. It's simply not true. It seems you and I are on the same page now. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
The federal judge overseeing the case alleging former President Donald Trump mishandled sensitive government documents after leaving the White House has dismissed the charges against him and his two codefendants. www.cbsnews.com | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45176 Posts
On July 15 2024 23:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Bad news for anyone expecting the documents case to go anywhere. The Judge threw it out. www.cbsnews.com Unsurprising, given how biased Aileen Cannon has been from the beginning. Still disappointing though. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1094 Posts
*sarcasm* Judge Cannon is throwing handgranades into a dynamite factory with this timing - and reasoning. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22007 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43354 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
As we move forward in Uniting our Nation after the horrific events on Saturday, this dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts — The January 6th Hoax in Washington, D.C., the Manhattan D.A.’s Zombie Case, the New York A.G. Scam, Fake Claims about a woman I never met (a decades old photo in a line with her then husband does not count), and the Georgia “Perfect” Phone Call charges. The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference conspiracy against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again! | ||
|
Introvert
United States4866 Posts
On July 15 2024 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: ...That's literally what I had originally said, and you had mocked me for saying it. I had written this: "maybe a universally-enforcing pro-life Democrat doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Democratic party when it comes to abortion, but agrees enough on other issues that they still identify more as a Democrat than as a Republican". And I also wrote that we could "appeal to the other non-abortion similarities". And then you responded with this: "You are displaying the exact thing I'm talking about. And you will be able to do this every issue. I guess Trump winning is more acceptable than compromises and allowing people with differing views into the tent. Or maybe people who talk like this don't actually believe what they are saying about Trump." Yes, two people can both be Democrats and not agree on everything. That's exactly why we were all scratching our heads when you asserted that Democrats are gate-keeping anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of the official party platform, and when you asserted that it's a shame that Democrats can't compromise or concede anything. It's simply not true. It seems you and I are on the same page now. Idk you were one of the people telling me compromise was impossible, almost as a matter of logic. But that was clearly wrong since most people who call themselves pro-life don't go all the way, logically consistent or not. This is what I've been saying the whole time, and you've been disagreeing. but maybe now we are at understanding if not an agreement, perhaps by accident. I suspect the topic is about to move to the big news of the day lol Edit: ans moreover my point is that dems have very obviously not done that on anything in the name of beating Trump | ||
|
Introvert
United States4866 Posts
On July 15 2024 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote: Got a preview of what Trump "toning it down" for a message of "unity" is going to look like, from his social media response to the case being thrown out: His statement after the shooting (maybe more relevent) was quite good, we'll see if that lasts. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On July 15 2024 23:48 Introvert wrote: His statement after the shooting (maybe more relevent) was quite good, we'll see if that lasts. Doesn't look like it. It's a message intended for his most loyal followers though, so he could take a different tack at the convention when he knows millions more people are watching, like the first half or so of the debate. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5788 Posts
On July 15 2024 22:32 Velr wrote: How do you imagine working together with the R's right now? The immigration/border deal was a perfect example of how it was tried but was shut down just "because" by the republicans. It's absolutly impossible to work with such lunatics. My friend. There was no "deal." If you don't have the votes for something, people didn't destroy your "deal," you failed to make one to begin with. Even Drumpf is not stupid enough to call a lack of votes a deal when it got shut down by the people who never agreed to it. To date only one border bill - HR2 - has gotten out of its chamber. And the Senate has done nothing with it. At all. Meanwhile we are supposed to believe a "border bill" that was 80% or more about Ukraine's border, that was so bipartisan as to get nowhere, is the real legislative genius? Like voting against the PATRIOT Act makes you a traitor? Like voting against the Inflation Reduction Act means you like inflation? It's more about substance and less about appearance than you think. On July 15 2024 22:35 Velr wrote: The first thing that Republicans tried after it being a "states right" again was to try and forbid it in as many states as possible, while stating actually wanting a federal ban (after having lost on the issue in the individual states were it was up to a vote). Many conservative jurisdictions had trigger laws already passed that would come into effect of Roe v. Wade was ever overturned. Some state legislators try to get to do their states to do more that didn't, but despite Democratic messaging a national ban is not on the table. On July 15 2024 22:35 Velr wrote: These are not serious people. Pro-Choice up until a certain point in the pregnancy is the only non-authoritarian solution and thats a non starter for the republican party (not necessary it's full electorate). If this is a non-starter, what is there even to comrpomise about? Exceptions are also non-authoritarian, probably more so than banning an exception after a certain time, but allowing elective alleged baby killing before that, would be. 20 week bans have passed both the House and Senate (but critically, not the evil filibuster Republicans use that we need to remove) multiple times before, but not since the Dobbs decision. The leader of the Republican Party has specifically put the issue behind him, says he solved it at the Court, doesn't want a federal ban and almost no elected Republicans are talking about it at the national level. Not even Lindsay Graham. Some noisemakers like Pence like to keep the torch burning because it's of no consequence to them either way. If you actually follow conservative circles, hardline prolifers think Trump is nothing but a Democrat. Many of them are still committed only to voting for Desantis, partially because of Florida's stance on abortion. But most of the party is simply frying bigger fish at the moment and wants to continue in the future so isn't liable to get bogged down in this issue again. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43354 Posts
| ||
|
Oleo
Netherlands279 Posts
On July 15 2024 23:31 Gorsameth wrote: The case was already delayed until after the election but to just throw it out? utter bullshit when Trump isn't even denying the basic facts of the case She didnt judge the case. She came up with some brainfart about unconstitutional appointment of the special counsel. Of course if that was indeed an unconstitutional appointment she could have made that judgement 2 weeks in. But hey she's just buying time for the boss hoping for favor and not even trying to hide it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45176 Posts
On July 15 2024 23:47 Introvert wrote: Idk you were one of the people telling me compromise was impossible, almost as a matter of logic. Specifically for abortion. Pro-life vs. Pro-choice. The single topic *you* selected and then walked back when multiple people called you out on it. I literally gave you an example of compromise being possible with guns, which you ignored. But I'm good to move on from this topic. | ||
| ||
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2025 December Finals
Classic vs TriGGeRLIVE!
Percival vs ByuN
IndyStarCraft
 191[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
BSL 21
Cross vs Dewalt
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Solar vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Krystianer
Spirit vs TBD
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
OSC
|
|
|
EPT
