|
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 |
On July 15 2024 14:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2024 09:05 Introvert wrote:
Abortion was only an example of the general question I was asking, but as I said, depending on the year, 40% to half of Americans call themselves pro-life, yet the Democratic party has no room for them whatsoever. This is just one of many issues they could open themselves up to, for the good of the country in general, but especially in the hopes of creating a coalition of voters to make sure that fascist dictator-in-waiting Donald Trump doesn't return to the presidency and institute a hereditary monarchy with Don Jr as heir apparent. How could the perspective of a pro-life person forcing their beliefs onto a pregnant woman possibly co-exist with the woman wanting to make her own decisions? They're inherently opposed. The Democrats are fine with the following 3 abortion perspectives: privately pro-choice, privately pro-life, and universally-enforcing pro-choice. They can't also add the 4th option, universally-enforcing pro-life, because that eliminates both privately pro-choice and universally-enforcing pro-choice. Forcing everyone to do X vs. Allowing everyone to make their own decisions about X are inherently mutually exclusive, right? I don't understand how you could "make room" for both, unless we appeal to the other non-abortion similarities (i.e., 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). There’s no such thing as being “privately pro-life.” What do you think that means? Someone that bans themselves from having an abortion? Of course the only enforcement of said ban would be someone’s personal choice to not have an abortion. Key word in bold there.
Tim Kaine, Hillary's would-be-VP was a privately pro-life person, in that he believed that abortion was wrong but that the state didn't have the right to infringe on women's rights by banning it.
That is an example of being privately pro-life, believing a thing without wanting that belief to be forcibly imposed on everyone else.
|
On July 16 2024 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2024 23:47 Introvert wrote:On July 15 2024 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2024 22:56 Introvert wrote:On July 15 2024 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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. 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.
For the record I ignored it because the specific topic was ancillary to the point I was making, which you ignored. Though to be fair so did almost eveyone else.
|
Been reading some opinions that Trump will pick RFK as vice-president. That would be a wild ride, both of them were technically Democrats not like it matters at all to Trump voters. Going the establishment route with Mike Pence was boring and backfired... but a scorched Earth wide-angle anti-establishment ticket - thats where the fun is.
edit: aaand his betting odds tanked in the last hour, Vance at 99% - boring 
|
Isn't this botox lady with texan teeth-job who "maybe met Kim Jong un in her dreams" the 1st pick?
|
From TrumpPence to TrumpVance.
|
On July 16 2024 04:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
Isn't this botox lady with texan teeth-job who "maybe met Kim Jong un in her dreams" the 1st pick?
Nope. It's JD Vance
Former President Donald J. Trump has chosen Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio to be his running mate
www.nytimes.com
|
Lame, was hoping for Youngkin.
|
RFK hasn't been in the cards for a while, it's close to the level of idea of having Sanders there, was hoping for Vivek but VP may not be the right role, Youngkin probably more strategic as Ohio is more clinched than VA in general but we can't go around snatching all the valuable governors and senators which are a limited resource. Don't know much about Vance which is probably the boat most people are in, same as we were with Pence, except Kinzinger is already pissed so that's a good sign.
|
Eh, reading up on his foreign policy at least he's not in the pocket of the military industrial complex. Might see 4 years of peace yet
|
On July 16 2024 04:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
Isn't this botox lady with texan teeth-job who "maybe met Kim Jong un in her dreams" the 1st pick?
The one who murdered her own dog? Nah.
|
On July 16 2024 04:33 zeo wrote:
Eh, reading up on his foreign policy at least he's not in the pocket of the military industrial complex. Might see 4 years of peace yet
He wants Ukraine to give in to Russia too, which may or may not be consistent with the idea of "4 years of peace" [if Trump ends up being a useful idiot to Putin].
He is also extremely pro-Israel, so Israel-Palestine is definitely going to lead to more Palestinian casualties.
|
Interesting excerpt from Politico:
"The author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” a 2016 memoir-turned-movie about growing up poor in Appalachia, Vance during the 2016 presidential race served as an anti-Trump conservative pundit. He compared GOP voters’ newfound interest in Trump to a heroin addiction, privately speculated about whether Trump was “America’s Hitler,” referred to himself as a “Never Trump guy” and to Trump as “an idiot,” and declared after the 2016 election that he had not voted for Trump." https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/15/trump-vice-president-jd-vance-00168277
Trump's runningmate used to think that Trump was as bad as Hitler, called Trump an idiot, and vowed to never support Trump. lol.
|
Northern Ireland23785 Posts
On July 16 2024 04:33 zeo wrote:
Eh, reading up on his foreign policy at least he's not in the pocket of the military industrial complex. Might see 4 years of peace yet
The military-industrial complex is still alive and kicking regardless of what policy is pursued on Russia-Ukraine moving forwards.
|
On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second.
Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle.
But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case.
|
Northern Ireland23785 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. Show nested quote +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
I expect very little so at least am not disappointed.
Instinctually this feels like bullshit, but I’m not exactly au fait with relevant laws here. Anyone more knowledgeable able to fill in some gaps?
As a big believer in various legal protections, one can still feel some moral outrage with a particular case, but concede that you can’t trample on protections arbitrarily.
|
Northern Ireland23785 Posts
On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case.
Such calls are many things to many people, virtue signalling they sure ain’t.
It’s a term so overused and completely bastardised that it’s borderline lost all meaning.
|
Netherlands21351 Posts
On July 16 2024 05:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump's runningmate used to think that Trump was as bad as Hitler, called Trump an idiot, and vowed to never support Trump. lol. So like most Republicans, party over country.
I am surprised he would pick someone that was publicly against him tho. I would have expected that unwavering devotion would be the #1 requirement after Pence failed to award Trump the Presidency in 2020.
|
Northern Ireland23785 Posts
On July 16 2024 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 05:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump's runningmate used to think that Trump was as bad as Hitler, called Trump an idiot, and vowed to never support Trump. lol. So like most Republicans, party over country. I am surprised he would pick someone that was publicly against him tho. I would have expected that unwavering devotion would be the #1 requirement after Pence failed to award Trump the Presidency in 2020.
History doesn’t seem to be all that big a consideration provided one is loyal to the Dear Leader in the present.
You could take the most ardent, proven Trump loyalist and if they turned on him on some issue they’d immediately move to pariah RINO status.
It’s just par for the course with this rather odd cult of personality, it’s not especially atypical in this domain.
And for the more moderate Republicans, or adjacent independents it feels quite a smart pick to go with such a figure. It made sense to go with Pence last time to shore up more religious demographics, but given they don’t seem to give much of a shit about Trump in this area it feels a waste of a demographic olive branch to do something similar again.
|
On July 16 2024 02:51 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2024 14:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 15 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2024 09:05 Introvert wrote:
Abortion was only an example of the general question I was asking, but as I said, depending on the year, 40% to half of Americans call themselves pro-life, yet the Democratic party has no room for them whatsoever. This is just one of many issues they could open themselves up to, for the good of the country in general, but especially in the hopes of creating a coalition of voters to make sure that fascist dictator-in-waiting Donald Trump doesn't return to the presidency and institute a hereditary monarchy with Don Jr as heir apparent. How could the perspective of a pro-life person forcing their beliefs onto a pregnant woman possibly co-exist with the woman wanting to make her own decisions? They're inherently opposed. The Democrats are fine with the following 3 abortion perspectives: privately pro-choice, privately pro-life, and universally-enforcing pro-choice. They can't also add the 4th option, universally-enforcing pro-life, because that eliminates both privately pro-choice and universally-enforcing pro-choice. Forcing everyone to do X vs. Allowing everyone to make their own decisions about X are inherently mutually exclusive, right? I don't understand how you could "make room" for both, unless we appeal to the other non-abortion similarities (i.e., 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). There’s no such thing as being “privately pro-life.” What do you think that means? Someone that bans themselves from having an abortion? Of course the only enforcement of said ban would be someone’s personal choice to not have an abortion. Key word in bold there. Tim Kaine, Hillary's would-be-VP was a privately pro-life person, in that he believed that abortion was wrong but that the state didn't have the right to infringe on women's rights by banning it. That is an example of being privately pro-life, believing a thing without wanting that belief to be forcibly imposed on everyone else.
That would by definition make him pro-choice, since he is advocating both privately and publically that it should be the freedom of the woman to choose the decision that is best for her and her family.
|
On July 16 2024 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 05:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump's runningmate used to think that Trump was as bad as Hitler, called Trump an idiot, and vowed to never support Trump. lol. So like most Republicans, party over country. I am surprised he would pick someone that was publicly against him tho. I would have expected that unwavering devotion would be the #1 requirement after Pence failed to award Trump the Presidency in 2020.
Every single one of Trump's potential runningmates had some anti-Trump baggage and quotes attached to them. Apparently, J.D. Vance did a complete 180 at some point, where he started to publicly support Trump and Trump endorsed him for Senate. He's been a full-fledged MAGA cultist for some time now, very similar to Vivek Ramaswamy (although Vance has more political experience and is probably more likeable than Ramaswamy).
J.D. Vance now represents the next/younger generation of MAGA, and basically agrees with everything Trump says and does. In fact, Vance currently aligns with Trump so closely, that I'm eagerly awaiting Introvert's inevitable post criticizing Trump for not choosing a runningmate that would really welcome more Trump-hesitant voters to vote for the Republican ticket. Trump decided to double-down on the MAGA positions for his runningmate, instead of considering more moderate and non-MAGA conservative alternatives, and Republicans really should be considering more compromise and concessions these days. It's definitely a missed opportunity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
