| 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 | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21628 Posts
On July 30 2024 03:53 oBlade wrote: <Snip>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. necessary to the security of a free State Fortunately the 2nd amendment agrees with shooting people attempting a fascist takeover of the government. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
On July 30 2024 03:39 Acrofales wrote: Well, they haven't successfully orchestrated a coup yet, have they? So? That's irrelevant. The fact that their 2020 coup attempt was foiled wasn't because the majority of Americans said "enough is enough" and banded together to create a wall of democracy to stop Trump and his inner circle. It was because a few key political players (Pence, some judges, etc.) weren't completely in Trump's pocket, and didn't go along with the plan. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24973 Posts
On July 30 2024 04:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So? That's irrelevant. The fact that their 2020 coup attempt was foiled wasn't because the majority of Americans said "enough is enough" and banded together to create a wall of democracy to stop Trump and his inner circle. It was because a few key political players (Pence, some judges, etc.) weren't completely in Trump's pocket, and didn't go along with the plan. They didn’t have to, those key players rendered it moot. It’s a matter of escalation, and I hope there’s the appetite for it it in the (IMO unlikely) event we see it again. I mean it’s not entirely equivalent but me and my colleagues aren’t going to strike if our employer agrees, via negotiations with our union a new set of conditions we’re roundly happy with. We may not be 100% placated, but hey it’s good enough. It’s kinda redundant for us to agree a strike based upon an agreement we’re roundly OK with. Especially for average Joe and Jane, each potential weapon open to them carries more and more personal sacrifice, so ideally you don’t want to go to your nukes immediately if you don’t have to. Voting requires very little, industrial action requires a fair lot and armed resistance requires a hell of a lot more again. Luckily last time Pence et al did the right thing. I think if they hadn’t, we would have seen something in response. As I said I’m not one of life’s optimists but Trump is more reviled than he is revered, the idea folks would just put up with a successful legalistic coup is IMO off-base. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
On July 30 2024 04:36 WombaT wrote: They didn’t have to, those key players rendered it moot. It’s a matter of escalation, and I hope there’s the appetite for it it in the (IMO unlikely) event we see it again. I mean it’s not entirely equivalent but me and my colleagues aren’t going to strike if our employer agrees, via negotiations with our union a new set of conditions we’re roundly happy with. We may not be 100% placated, but hey it’s good enough. It’s kinda redundant for us to agree a strike based upon an agreement we’re roundly OK with. Especially for average Joe and Jane, each potential weapon open to them carries more and more personal sacrifice, so ideally you don’t want to go to your nukes immediately if you don’t have to. Voting requires very little, industrial action requires a fair lot and armed resistance requires a hell of a lot more again. Luckily last time Pence et al did the right thing. I think if they hadn’t, we would have seen something in response. As I said I’m not one of life’s optimists but Trump is more reviled than he is revered, the idea folks would just put up with a successful legalistic coup is IMO off-base. I guess it's one of those hypothetical retributions where we won't know for sure until Trump successfully pulls off stealing the election. I just hope things start off on the right foot by Harris winning in November. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
On July 30 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote: <Snip>Fortunately the 2nd amendment agrees with shooting people attempting a fascist takeover of the government. I wonder what would have happened if Thomas Matthew Crooks had left a manifesto explaining that his moral justification for trying to assassinate Trump was to protect the United States from fascism, and cited his legal justification as the 2nd Amendment. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On July 30 2024 03:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Under 60 includes Taylor Swift, so she would be considered with this approach. Oh, sorry. I misread that. Instead of "disregarding people over 60," I somehow read that as only considering people over 60. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17961 Posts
On July 30 2024 04:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I wonder what would have happened if Thomas Matthew Crooks had left a manifesto explaining that his moral justification for trying to assassinate Trump was to protect the United States from fascism, and cited his legal justification as the 2nd Amendment. Nothing much, he'd still be dead. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
Do you think anyone would start seeing the 2nd Amendment in a new way? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28632 Posts
Political assassinations can be successful in the sense that they can remove a person crucial to achieving a particular political goal and the removal of that person can halt the cause championed by that person. So it's conceivable that actually killing Trump could've made the republican party turn less MAGA (hard to say what direction, though). But they don't change people's hearts. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
| ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany903 Posts
That's if they actually have political ambitions. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8973 Posts
On July 30 2024 18:22 KT_Elwood wrote: The GOP should just ask Trump to step down and play Golf. That's if they actually have political ambitions. They wouldn't sniff any chamber of congress let alone the white house if they did that. They need him to secure seats and he's their best bet to get those, all because they tied their horse to him. He'll drag them down and they can't get off the raft now. I suspect that if he does debate Harris and is presumably embarrassed, Biden's SCOTUS bill would get pushed through next year with Dems in charge and probably 2-3 more Judges added to rebalance the court. Then the fun begins. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17961 Posts
On July 30 2024 21:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: They wouldn't sniff any chamber of congress let alone the white house if they did that. They need him to secure seats and he's their best bet to get those, all because they tied their horse to him. He'll drag them down and they can't get off the raft now. I suspect that if he does debate Harris and is presumably embarrassed, Biden's SCOTUS bill would get pushed through next year with Dems in charge and probably 2-3 more Judges added to rebalance the court. Then the fun begins. What actually happens if the SCOTUS bill ends up before the SCOTUS and they decide it's "unconstitutional" and refuse to comply? I'm guessing Congress could impeach some of them? What a clusterfuck. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21628 Posts
On July 30 2024 22:00 Acrofales wrote: nothing about the size of SCOTUS in the constitution, and the amount of seats has been increased in the past. What actually happens if the SCOTUS bill ends up before the SCOTUS and they decide it's "unconstitutional" and refuse to comply? I'm guessing Congress could impeach some of them? What a clusterfuck. What if they rule anyway? the court loses any respect it has and since it has no actual means of enforcing its decisions you can just ignore them. Courts only work if people respect them (or they have the force of the government behind it). With neither they are just old people yelling at clouds. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
That being said, while my head says Shapiro, my heart prefers a military veteran who was also a Rhodes Scholar, graduated from both Harvard and Oxford, is the youngest member of President Biden's Cabinet, and is currently in the limelight for dunking on Trump and Vance and Republicans in the most eloquent and viral ways imaginable. I was impressed with Pete Buttigieg's communication skills during the 2020 primary, when he even won over crowds during Fox News interviews, and I think he's only improved since then. I know that Trump has already refused to debate Harris - which means Trump probably won't let his weird joke of a runningmate, J.D. Vance, debate Harris's runningmate, either - but if Buttigieg had the opportunity to trounce Vance, it would be the stuff of legends. Unfortunately, I don't think Pete Buttigieg is considered as viable a runningmate for two reasons: 1. He is from (and was mayor of) a town in conservative Indiana, which isn't in play as a swing state. Pennsylvania is far more valuable, anyway. 2. There might be some potential Harris voters who are still anti-LGBTQ+. It would be amazing to have both the first woman of color as president *and* the first openly gay vice president though. This was from the 2020 primary, and there are plenty of clips currently circulating that feature his more recent pro-Democratic, pro-Harris, anti-Trump, anti-Vance messages. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21628 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5514 Posts
On July 30 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote: <Snip>Fortunately the 2nd amendment agrees with shooting people attempting a fascist takeover of the government. The 2nd amendment is not the part of the Constitution that gives guns to federal law enforcement and the army, i.e., to the government, which you are advocating shoot opponents, which is a hallmark of violent fascism, in an alleged attempt to stop a nonexistent fascism which has been built up over years in a giant reality denial vortex. Nor does the 2nd amendment give you carte blanche to shoot at a government that you claim is evil just because you're losing politically, which is something Republicans have been trying to explain to Democrats since the Battle of Fort Sumter. On July 30 2024 18:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Apparently, even some hosts on Fox News want Trump to debate Kamala Harris. Trump is refusing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WblskjFYKhg Note to anyone who gets tricked by 10 minute outrage factory videos clipped from 10 seconds - Laura Ingraham asking Trump a question is not "even some hosts on Fox News want Trump to debate." As though he hasn't debated every other nominee. "The answer is yes." "I would rather run against her than him." "I don't mind anything, we can do any form of a debate." He also said a lot of other interesting things which are either true or completely fair opinions to have. For example, it's important to debate before votes start getting cast. (He didn't seem to mention that Kamala should actually be the nominee before they debate, which was his reason for not debating Sanders in 2016.) That he doesn't want to reward the news, and could make a case for not doing it, and has had no problem debating on hostile turf, and that most people should basically know where they stand on policy already. Trump's had no problem taking the biggest debate stage in the past but we need to stir up some totally organic criticism to paint it like he's a coward who won't stand up to the brave Kamala after getting shot. He didn't debate her yesterday, or today, and won't debate her tomorrow... wow what a loser! | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
On July 30 2024 23:45 oBlade wrote: Laura Ingraham asking Trump a question is not "even some hosts on Fox News want Trump to debate." As though he hasn't debated every other nominee. Trump literally just refused to debate all the other nominees in the 2024 Republican primary lol. Before 2024 Biden, I'm pretty sure that Trump hadn't been in a debate since 2020 Biden, and to claim that his 2020 shitshow on the debate stage was actually him "debating [another] nominee" is taking an extremely liberal definition of what constitutes "debating". If he changes his mind and actually does debate Harris, then I think it'll be an interesting debate. I don't think Harris would auto-win that debate, although I think that Buttigieg would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance. I think a Harris-Trump debate slightly leans towards Harris, but it might also depend on the format (who is moderating, is there a crowd, is there fact-checking, etc.). But for now, you bet it makes sense to say that Trump is scared to debate Harris; he does have a decent amount at stake if he loses definitively. Edit: In your video at 3:17, I love how Laura Ingraham nervously laughs as she double-checks with Trump about him toooootally being fine with leaving office after another 4 years, if he wins. "You will leave office after 4 years, correct?" Yikes. It's insane that even Fox News needs to ask Trump that, to try to assure their viewers that he won't be the fascist he tries to be. And then Trump casually lies by saying "I did last time", as if he took his 2020 loss like an adult or a professional or a leader or any person with even a shred of dignity. He attempted to illegally keep power last time, and still continues to lie and complain about losing the 2020 election. Of course he'll attempt to illegally keep power again, if he ever wins the presidency a second time. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany903 Posts
It's like he is asking Melania for a golden shower. He has no deep desire to end democracy in that moment, he just sees somebody who needs to do somthing for him, and his mind wandered to "just do it once, and you never have to do it again" to convince them. "Hey babe, lets just try it in the shower! Only once, I promise you never have to do it again (if you don't like it)" | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2639 Posts
On July 31 2024 00:44 KT_Elwood wrote: I think I understood Trump when he said "You do it once, and you never have to do it again" It's like he is asking Melania for a golden shower. He has no deep desire to end democracy in that moment, he just sees somebody who needs to do somthing for him, and his mind wandered to "just do it once, and you never have to do it again" to convince them. "Hey babe, lets just try it in the shower! Only once, I promise you never have to do it again (if you don't like it)" This is uncalled for and just plain weird. There are plenty of things to attack Trump on without bringing Melania into it. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
HomeStory Cup
CSO Cup
BSL: ProLeague
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
