EPTExhibit 175747 of 173477357
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4310
| 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 | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26035 Posts
Exhibit 175747 of 173477357 | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
|
RenSC2
United States1070 Posts
On July 28 2024 07:57 WombaT wrote: Well yeah, those things already happened. Trump already (IMO) tried to engender circumstances where he’d steal an election, at least in his own mind. There’s no need to fixate on an (IMO ambiguous) quote if one is concerned on such things, given the former exists. If in column A they’ve already done the thing that they might be implying they might do in column B, I think it’s prudent to focus on column A is all. In an alternate reality where 2016 candidate Trump is talking in such a manner I think it would have been prudent to consider that at the time as well. Or indeed many did on the occasions he did stray into such rhetoric The issue is that most of his supporters deny what he tried to do after last election. Pointing to the obvious evidence has fallen on deaf ears. People who might be reasonable in many other ways continue to fall for Trump and repeatedly telling them what he already did isn’t working. So pointing out new evidence that continues to establish the pattern of what he’s already done still adds to the total picture. Maybe it’ll eventually get through with some. Some women just can’t believe their husband has cheated on them despite solid evidence, but a little bit of lipstick on his collar may push some over the edge to accepting reality. | ||
|
frontgarden2222
58 Posts
On July 28 2024 08:08 WombaT wrote: Like the man talks absolutely shite on the daily. The problem with crypto is that it’s regulated too much? Exhibit 175747 of 173477357 I'm not watching the video but just making a general statement about crypto regulation here. Yes, a lot of people in Trump's circle would love complete deregulation (or further I guess) of crypto as so many of them use it to grift and rug pull their supporters as well as generally shuffle money around. Further regulation would potentially limit your Logan Pauls or Andrew Tates from scamming their marks. On July 28 2024 10:05 RenSC2 wrote: The issue is that most of his supporters deny what he tried to do after last election. Pointing to the obvious evidence has fallen on deaf ears. People who might be reasonable in many other ways continue to fall for Trump and repeatedly telling them what he already did isn’t working. So pointing out new evidence that continues to establish the pattern of what he’s already done still adds to the total picture. Maybe it’ll eventually get through with some. Some women just can’t believe their husband has cheated on them despite solid evidence, but a little bit of lipstick on his collar may push some over the edge to accepting reality. The reality is that a lot of people just don't care if things are theoretically going their way. See most of these conservatives being totally fine with maintaining the importance and sanctity rule of law while making zero noise about Clarence Thomas generally being an openly huge piece of shit taking bribes from anyone who is willing to give him any. In a competent Congress, Clarence Thomas wouldn't be in his seat in 2024. Newt Gingrich completely broke American civil society by introducing such completely cynical political posturing that only the end result matters. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26035 Posts
On July 28 2024 10:05 RenSC2 wrote: The issue is that most of his supporters deny what he tried to do after last election. Pointing to the obvious evidence has fallen on deaf ears. People who might be reasonable in many other ways continue to fall for Trump and repeatedly telling them what he already did isn’t working. So pointing out new evidence that continues to establish the pattern of what he’s already done still adds to the total picture. Maybe it’ll eventually get through with some. Some women just can’t believe their husband has cheated on them despite solid evidence, but a little bit of lipstick on his collar may push some over the edge to accepting reality. If they deny witnessing their husband banging some other broad, then showing them some lipstick on the collar is essentially pointless. I think he’s a staggeringly awful human being, made much more impactful by him being a notable political figure. I would not shed a tear if the next would be assassin had slightly better aim Nonetheless, nitpicking on his utterances hasn’t been an effective counter strategy since he emerged as a presence in this sphere, it just doesn’t really work. A combo of the particularly heinous things he’s actually done, allied to a ‘here’s some good things I did, or what do’, I think absolutely can. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26035 Posts
On July 28 2024 09:21 riotjune wrote: Dayum, you keeping count of Trump's sins? Maybe we should compare lists Haha, touché | ||
|
frontgarden2222
58 Posts
On July 28 2024 11:54 WombaT wrote: If they deny witnessing their husband banging some other broad, then showing them some lipstick on the collar is essentially pointless. I think he’s a staggeringly awful human being, made much more impactful by him being a notable political figure. I would not shed a tear if the next would be assassin had slightly better aim Nonetheless, nitpicking on his utterances hasn’t been an effective counter strategy since he emerged as a presence in this sphere, it just doesn’t really work. A combo of the particularly heinous things he’s actually done, allied to a ‘here’s some good things I did, or what do’, I think absolutely can. The thing is that US politics is so cynical and selfish in 2024 that no one really cares about anything until it personally affects them. Dave Portnoy, an incredibly rich intentionally childless man who owns an incredibly successful sports media network (Barstool), was ride and die Trump until it was exposed that JD Vance is a techbro natalist freak who wants to tax unproductive childless adults. Because being childless is considered something you should implement a sin tax for. Nevermind everything else the Republicans have proposed wanting to do, an honestly meagre tax on Dave Portnoy's lifestyle choice was the thing that made him foam in the mouth on social media. | ||
|
Slydie
1927 Posts
On July 28 2024 08:08 WombaT wrote: Like the man talks absolutely shite on the daily. The problem with crypto is that it’s regulated too much? Exhibit 175747 of 173477357 This is pretty bold, especially since he would need congress on his side, and the FTX scandal did not sit well with either party. This smells like empty promises, and they will backfire if he is challenged to defend his position. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On July 28 2024 15:38 Slydie wrote: empty promises backfiring on Trump? thats a good joke.This is pretty bold, especially since he would need congress on his side, and the FTX scandal did not sit well with either party. This smells like empty promises, and they will backfire if he is challenged to defend his position. The other 171234 empty promises he made didn't backfire, this one won't either. | ||
|
Slydie
1927 Posts
On July 28 2024 18:07 Gorsameth wrote: empty promises backfiring on Trump? thats a good joke. The other 171234 empty promises he made didn't backfire, this one won't either. I wasn't talking about not delivering, but rather that defending crypto might backfire during the campaign. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11630 Posts
On July 28 2024 21:48 Slydie wrote: I wasn't talking about not delivering, but rather that defending crypto might backfire during the campaign. In a sane world, sure. But that doesn't seem to happen with Trump. Usually, scamming your followers would lead to you having fewer followers. But Trumps cult is weird. I mean, he already fucked them over with crypto/NFTs at least once. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45048 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On July 28 2024 22:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: his followers obviously won't care.Question: If we were to hypothetically learn that Trump has been lying all this time about being shot / a bullet grazing his ear - but rather what really happened was that his ear was cut by glass or something else that flew by during the attack - do you think anyone would care? I assume not, since the assassination attempt was still real and horrifying, but it still wouldn't legitimize Trump's hypothetical lying in this hypothetical scenario. Everyone else? will probably care more then they would have if he just told the truth right away. At the start, Trump got shot at, whether a bullet or glass hit him no one questions that he got shot at. How close the bullet got is barely relevant. After he showed up with his ear diaper and then it turns out to be almost nothing? He's a loser, we all already knew that. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18117 Posts
On July 28 2024 22:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Question: If we were to hypothetically learn that Trump has been lying all this time about being shot / a bullet grazing his ear - but rather what really happened was that his ear was cut by glass or something else that flew by during the attack - do you think anyone would care? I assume not, since the assassination attempt was still real and horrifying, but it still wouldn't legitimize Trump's hypothetical lying in this hypothetical scenario. Would trump know the difference? I really don't see why a bullet being shot at you, it getting deflected through some glass and grazing his ear, is any different from a bullet being shot at you, it gets reflected through some glass and a shard cuts your ear. The subjective experience for whoever is getting shot at seems pretty much identical. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45048 Posts
On July 28 2024 23:08 Acrofales wrote: Would trump know the difference? I really don't see why a bullet being shot at you, it getting deflected through some glass and grazing his ear, is any different from a bullet being shot at you, it gets reflected through some glass and a shard cuts your ear. The subjective experience for whoever is getting shot at seems pretty much identical. I agree that the subjective experience is pretty much identical. He's repeatedly asserted that he's literally taken a bullet for his country and that he's been shot in the ear and that a bullet hit his ear though, and so I was wondering if it would matter if he hypothetically got caught lying again. Probably not, as Gorsameth pointed out. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States535 Posts
On July 27 2024 05:50 BlackJack wrote: You made the incorrect assumption that I disagreed with hiring on the basis of race because it meant an unqualified person would be hired. When in reality I disagree with hiring on the basis of race, full stop. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. The fact that Kentaji Brown Jackson is qualified for her position is added context but it's completely irrelevant. You seem to think that people only disagree with hiring people for their skin color because they believe it will lead to less qualified people being hired. I'm letting you know that some people disagree with it because it's discriminatory and racist. You keep saying DEI doesn’t make sense to you, and make statements like this, so it leads me to believe you genuinely don’t understand the underpinnings behind it. It’s not that ethically-minded people want to hire minority groups because they just like minority groups better or hate whites or something. It’s because minority groups are disadvantaged in society in a way that is not fair when compared to whites. The only reason race is picked as an attribute to focus on in this way is because it’s one of the most well-known attributes that has a ton of historical and empirical evidence demonstrating the disparity. Same with women, and to a lesser extent LGBTQIA+. It’s the exact same reasoning for giving people with health conditions or impairments like blindness extra support; because empirical and anecdotal evidence shows they struggle way more than the majority and it’s only fair they get help to give them as equal an opportunity for a fulfilling life as we can give them. If the struggle of left-handed people vs right-handed in modern society became more studied and backed by solid evidence we could make them DEI hires too. Or the Sneetches without stars on their bellies. To reiterate; the attribute itself isn’t important, the disparity of quality of life between the groups that differ on the attribute is. Now obviously that doesn’t apply to everyone supporting DEI; I’m sure there’s some in the minority groups that don’t seek equitable justice but instead to become the dominant majority. Perhaps they can be seen as working the system to usurp power from the current majority and disenfranchise them. I’ll say to that, they have a loooong way to go. Because aside from the obvious current hostility to minority groups, if one ever DID find themselves in this hypothetical position, the ethically-minded person would then turn around and rightfully stop giving them preferential treatment. Because it would no longer be fair. You’re also right that it’s technically discriminating against whites/the majority. But as previously stated, it’s not specifically because they’re white, it’s because they’re demonstrated to have an unfair advantage. In addition, the people who clamor against DEI, presumably because “they don’t pay attention to race”, are still perpetuating a system that discriminates against minorities while actively sabotaging a potential solution to make things more fair. Now I personally would agree that it’s not your fault that you were born into the system, and if you don’t actively discriminate against minorities in your life then I wouldn’t call you a racist. But I wouldn’t call you ethically-minded either. If not having that label bothers you, your vitriol towards DEI itself is misplaced. It should instead be directed towards disproving the mountains of evidence demonstrating the unfair disparities between groups that differ on attributes targeted by DEI. Addendum: In the same way it’s not your fault that you were born with an unfair advantage and that doesn’t make you a bad person for having it, it’s not an ethically-minded person’s fault that they notice the unfair advantage and that doesn’t make them a bad person for seeking to take something from you to correct it. Wanting what’s fair vs. wanting what’s yours. A tale as old as time. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26035 Posts
On July 28 2024 23:46 Ryzel wrote: You keep saying DEI doesn’t make sense to you, and make statements like this, so it leads me to believe you genuinely don’t understand the underpinnings behind it. It’s not that ethically-minded people want to hire minority groups because they just like minority groups better or hate whites or something. It’s because minority groups are disadvantaged in society in a way that is not fair when compared to whites. The only reason race is picked as an attribute to focus on in this way is because it’s one of the most well-known attributes that has a ton of historical and empirical evidence demonstrating the disparity. Same with women, and to a lesser extent LGBTQIA+. It’s the exact same reasoning for giving people with health conditions or impairments like blindness extra support; because empirical and anecdotal evidence shows they struggle way more than the majority and it’s only fair they get help to give them as equal an opportunity for a fulfilling life as we can give them. If the struggle of left-handed people vs right-handed in modern society became more studied and backed by solid evidence we could make them DEI hires too. Or the Sneetches without stars on their bellies. To reiterate; the attribute itself isn’t important, the disparity of quality of life between the groups that differ on the attribute is. Now obviously that doesn’t apply to everyone supporting DEI; I’m sure there’s some in the minority groups that don’t seek equitable justice but instead to become the dominant majority. Perhaps they can be seen as working the system to usurp power from the current majority and disenfranchise them. I’ll say to that, they have a loooong way to go. Because aside from the obvious current hostility to minority groups, if one ever DID find themselves in this hypothetical position, the ethically-minded person would then turn around and rightfully stop giving them preferential treatment. Because it would no longer be fair. You’re also right that it’s technically discriminating against whites/the majority. But as previously stated, it’s not specifically because they’re white, it’s because they’re demonstrated to have an unfair advantage. In addition, the people who clamor against DEI, presumably because “they don’t pay attention to race”, are still perpetuating a system that discriminates against minorities while actively sabotaging a potential solution to make things more fair. Now I personally would agree that it’s not your fault that you were born into the system, and if you don’t actively discriminate against minorities in your life then I wouldn’t call you a racist. But I wouldn’t call you ethically-minded either. If not having that label bothers you, your vitriol towards DEI itself is misplaced. It should instead be directed towards disproving the mountains of evidence demonstrating the unfair disparities between groups that differ on attributes targeted by DEI. Addendum: In the same way it’s not your fault that you were born with an unfair advantage and that doesn’t make you a bad person for having it, it’s not an ethically-minded person’s fault that they notice the unfair advantage and that doesn’t make them a bad person for seeking to take something from you to correct it. Wanting what’s fair vs. wanting what’s yours. A tale as old as time. There’s mountains of evidence that consistently show different accents influence processes like job interviews, or the perception of one’s intelligence more generally. Perhaps this is more pronounced in the UK, which has a lot of accent variation, plus associated cultural associations along class lines with particular accents too. So yeah if even relatively minor things have measurably skewing abilities, the idea of the current situation being some kind of ‘best for the job’ meritocracy that we’d be pulling down isn’t really tenable. We end up comparing an attempt to redress these issues, even if at times in a flawed manner, with some idealised hypothetical way of doing it that doesn’t really exist. Not to say I don’t think there are flaws in fixing things either of course, but there is definitely something to be fixed. For me anyway: 1. It’s not joined-up enough, and the entry level of implementation is often way too high up the chain. This is especially applicable in areas where there actually aren’t huge structural impediments. For example, there’s a big push here to get women into tech/coding jobs, and hey having worked in companies that do actually have a pretty decent gender split, I can definitely see the positives in that. The flipside of that is the issue starts way down the chain. If young girls are dropping computing subjects at 12/13, there’s relatively few who are going to suddenly want to do a comp sci undergrad down the line. But those that do already have sorta earned their stripes, but get an additional boost with priority hiring practices. In a crude sense if you don’t change the overall pipeline throughout, merely how you treat what comes out one end, you’re not really fixing the issue. 2. Implementation can sorely lack intersectionality, there are certainly examples in my locale, I imagine there are similar ones across the globe. Working class Protestant males are pretty much the worst-performing demographic on all sorts of metrics. But white males, and Protestant white males from more salubrious upbringings are absolutely at the top of the food chain simultaneously. So you end up in a scenario that in an attempt to redress the latter, you really fuck over the former unless you actively account for it. Which, as yet we haven’t done in either a government policy level, or in a corporate policy level. In a sense the working class white male gets fucked from basically every angle, from both socioeconomic factors in general, but also by DEI in its current implementation in many cases in addition. I think the problem you see is that almost all of the ire from these demographics tends towards direction to the likes of DEI, and not the wider socioeconomic context. Not just with Trumpism but with many a similar movement. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
If you're gonna shift the goal posts until November 5th, I'm out. Do it with somebody else. It's all moot since the right wing doesn't seem to give the first shit about an official's resume until they're a Democrat anyway. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
On July 28 2024 23:08 Acrofales wrote: Would trump know the difference? I really don't see why a bullet being shot at you, it getting deflected through some glass and grazing his ear, is any different from a bullet being shot at you, it gets reflected through some glass and a shard cuts your ear. The subjective experience for whoever is getting shot at seems pretty much identical. Butler truthers aside, yes of course Drumpf would not know the difference, nor would he need to, basically this is the steps of what happens: 1) Guy shoots at Drumpf 2) Part of Drumpf's ear is blown off and blood everywhere 3) USSS use their powers of deduction to conclude he was shot, take him to the hospital 4) Doctors say wow Mr. President this looks like a gunshot took your ear, we should treat you for it 5) Thank you, you're the best doctors 6) Almost instantly conspiracy theories start, someone planned it to make him look good in the news cycle, blah blah. The truth is if there were shrapnel from something there would be shrapnel in the collective meaning something in Trump's eye and other people getting hit by shrapnel and etc. Which if you actually recover it with pieces of Drumpf on it, or the bullet with pieces of Drumpf on it, either way all you're proving is something very unlikely happened. Truth is simply after getting shot Trump and everybody else are going with "that was a bullet" esp. with the photo of a bullet going past the other side of him with no shrapnel in sight, and being wrong about that would mean something weirdly unlikely happened which doesn't necessitate any lying. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2649 Posts
The fact that no one is stupid enough to make a guy try to shot their ear with a rifle from that range is indisputable. And it's very hard to argue that someone on live camera could put fake blood on his ear. But if it was just shrapnel from glass and the actual bullets weren't that close to him... | ||
| ||
