|
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 August 08 2024 20:17 Magic Powers wrote:
"The enemy of my enemy must be my friend" applies equally to both sides. Kamala is not our ally just because she's opposed to Trump.
No, she's the ally because the Democrats platform in general is leagues and above better than the Republican one (well, if they had one) on just about every subject you can imagine.
That she's not alligning with you on 1 subject, that is not even an issue centered in or around the US, doesn't change that even slightly.
So, Trump gets elected in. The US stops all support to Ukraine. Busts any progress Biden has done for unions. Further attacks abortion in the US. Reintroduces the horrible camps at the US borders and Israel does exactly what it does now if not worse... Well, pick whatever you want else out of project 2025.
What have you won? Besides proven that your one dimensional focus on Israel/Gaza has fucked the US and the World twice over. Congratulations on your principles I guess.
|
The war in middle east is a war. Not genocide, as much as you may like the sound of victimhood dropping from the word.
"War" and "Genocide" are not mutually exclusive. It is much easier to commit genocide if there is a war going on at the same time.
|
On August 08 2024 20:15 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2024 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 08 2024 18:08 Silvanel wrote:
If I was a single issue voter and that issue was Palestine's plight I would vote for Trump. Now he might be saying some horrible things but he is also very volatile and in bed with far-right so actual chances of him doing something against Isreal intrests are much higher than in case of Democrats.
Now I am neither an American nor is Palastine that important to me but from this side of Atlantic voting Democrat doesnt look like its going to solve anything regarding Palestine-Isreal debacle. You would vote for Trump if you sided with Israel's attack on Palestinians, not if you empathized with Palestinians. Trump wants Israel to blow Palestinians off the face of the Earth, and is happy to aggressively help that happen even faster than the current pace. I repeat the question: what would Trump actually do, that would be worse than what is happaning right now?
Constant verbal support to military action in palistine, as opposed to Biden's usual silence and ocasional grumbling, would be a boon to Netanyahu and empower more brazen violence.
|
I dont agree with that assement. They are going as fast and as agressive as they want and as logistical/military circustances allow. Trump being verbally supportive would not change anything in that regard.
|
On August 08 2024 18:57 Silvanel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I am aware. But then again what exactly is Biden doing to stop Isreal? Nothing. He is sending Netanjahu free weapons. Trump might actually ask Isreal to pay for the bombs, which would be a step in right direction. Also I have a hard time beliving Trump would send American troops into Gaza, given that part of his platform his to get out of foreign wars. What exactly would Trump do that would be so much worse than what is happening right now? Edit: Actually I think sending American troops into Gaza would be a great idea. It would certainly be better for Palestinians, given different rules of engagment and that American soldiers dont actually hate Palestinians...
Me too, i just think if Trump would have been in office, yes he wouldn't have sent troops, but his buddy in corruption Bibi and the radical right in Isreal would have had free reign.
|
Would Trump have went and played strong man when it started and in turn got the US army more involved or you think he'd be all talk and just flood social media endlessly so no one can even hear anything Israel is doing? Really don't know which one is better tbh.
Oddly enough I doubt any other president would have done better re north Korea but that might be because Kim wanted respect.
|
On August 08 2024 21:07 Silvanel wrote:
I dont agree with that assement. They are going as fast and as agressive as they want and as logistical/military circustances allow. Trump being verbally supportive would not change anything in that regard.
Gorsameth's comment was more complete than mine, so I'll defer to him.
On August 08 2024 20:45 Gorsameth wrote:
Israel is walking a tightrope of how much they can get away with, If they are to aggressive in 'cleansing' Palestinians the pressure increases on the US to push back.
We saw this with Rafah where the Biden administration kept Israel from moving in for a long time while refugees were relocating.
With Trump in the WH Netanyahu can most likely get away with a lot more then under Kamala, I highly doubt he would have delayed the attack on Rafah and the massive amount of refugees there, thus resulting in many more civilian casualties.
Now ofc those of us who opposite the excess of Israel's attack aren't happy with how little Biden has done, but Trump would objectively be worse.
(and I would expect Kamala to be more critical then Biden, tho not remotely as much as I would like)
I'll add that I don't think we've seen close to what the Israeli army is capable of in terms of actual genocide.
|
|
|
Apparently, Republicans are calling Tim Walz "Tampon Tim" because Walz wanted to make sure that all menstruating students have access to tampons at school. It's a legitimate issue for students, as teachers know all too well. In other words, Walz is a compassionate human being who cares about children and education, and conservatives are the opposite.
Mocking Harris for laughing, and mocking Walz for paying attention to kids' needs, like food and menstrual products... Nice job, Republicans!
|
On August 08 2024 21:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Apparently, Republicans are calling Tim Walz "Tampon Tim" because Walz wanted to make sure that all menstruating students have access to tampons at school. It's a legitimate issue for students, as teachers know all too well. In other words, Walz is a compassionate human being who cares about children and education, and conservatives are the opposite.
Mocking Harris for laughing, and mocking Walz for paying attention to kids' needs, like food and menstrual products... Nice job, Republicans! It will work on petulant man-children who never moved past the 'menstruation is icky' phase of puberty. Everyone else sees a compassionate man who cares about children's access to essential healthcare products.
|
If we were to conduct a poll in this thread, the overwhelming consensus would be that Trump is worse than Kamala in every regard including the Israel-Palestine conflict. So lesser-evilism dictates voting for Kamala. Therefore that's not the point of contention.
The critical question is why exactly Kamala feels it is right to dismiss the pro-Palestine protestors the way she did. Should she face more, equal or less criticism? I think more, including from Kamala voters. That is the point.
|
Bit late to the “weird”-as-insult discussion, but wanted to throw in that it’s particularly clever because of the different meanings of the word, and the inability of Rs to be able to turn it around on Ds.
It seems clear to me that it’s being used to attack R politicians like Trump with the meaning of “skeevy” / “creepy”, which totally tracks. That particular definition can’t be used to attack D politicians very well, because Ds typically root that behavior out of their party when it’s dragged into the public sphere (with the notable exception of Biden, but he’s out of the picture now so it’s a moot point. In fact the use of “weird” as an attack started after he resigned from the political sphere, coincidence?).
In addition, it also has the definition of “different”. So when the word is used in culture war skirmishes, lots of people / groups on the left wear the badge of “weird” with pride, and the opposite is true of those on the right. So when that word is used to describe people on the right, they are more likely to get uncomfortable, and if they turn around and use that word to describe those on the left, they’ll just smile and say “we know!”
I’ve noticed that when D politicians use the word “weird” as an attack, it’s not being used with the vitriol typically associated with smear campaigns. Kamala’s not standing at the pulpit shouting to her masses “We must defeat that weirdo Trump and his army of weirdos!” It almost comes off more as tongue-in-cheek, with a bemused smile and eyebrow raise. Which is perfect because it gives the impression “we don’t necessarily have a problem with weird…but you guys are definitely weird”. It plays into the idea that Ds aren’t the one who have a problem with weirdness (in the “different” sense of the word), Rs are, so their usual method of deflection doesn’t work. If/when Rs instead try to counter with pride in their weirdness, they become the antithesis of their core platform of tradition/normalcy, making them ironically more akin to Ds who have always embraced “weirdness”, making it more likely to disillusion those Rs and turn them to Ds instead.
It’s really a beautifully nuanced and effective line of attack, whoever came up with it is a genius.
|
On August 08 2024 21:48 Ryzel wrote:
Bit late to the “weird”-as-insult discussion, but wanted to throw in that it’s particularly clever because of the different meanings of the word, and the inability of Rs to be able to turn it around on Ds.
It seems clear to me that it’s being used to attack Repubs with the meaning of “skeevy” / “creepy”, which totally tracks. That particular definition can’t be used to attack Ds very well, because Ds typically root that behavior out of their party when it’s dragged into the public sphere (with the notable exception of Biden, but he’s out of the picture now so it’s a moot point. In fact the use of “weird” as an attack started after he resigned from the political sphere, coincidence?).
In addition, it also has the definition of “different”. Lots of people / groups on the left wear the badge of “weird” with pride, and the opposite is true of those on the right. So when that word is used to describe people on the right, they are more likely to get uncomfortable, and if they turn around and use that word to describe those on the left, they’ll just smile and say “we know!”
I’ve noticed that when they use the word “weird” as an attack, it’s not being used with the vitriol typically associated with smear campaigns. Kamala’s not standing at the pulpit shouting to her masses “We must defeat that weirdo Trump and his army of weirdos!” It almost comes off more as tongue-in-cheek, with a bemused smile and eyebrow raise. Which is perfect because it gives the impression “we don’t necessarily have a problem with weird…but you guys are definitely weird”. It plays into the idea that Ds aren’t the one who have a problem with weirdness (in the “different” sense of the word), Rs are, so their usual method of deflection doesn’t work. If/when Rs instead try to counter with pride in their weirdness, they become the antithesis of their core platform of tradition/normalcy, making them ironically more akin to Ds who have always embraced “weirdness”.
It’s a beautifully nuanced and effective line of attack that one really has to admire for its efficacy.
I agree. Democrats do a much better job of embracing diversity (and equity and inclusion), so they don't care that Republicans think it's "weird" to be gay or trans or biracial or own cats or need tampons or want healthcare or desire bodily autonomy or not have children.
|
I think it's totally okay to not let rude people interrupt your speech.
Harris hasn't even invalidated the arguments, but just the time&form of protest. And I think that's totally okay. Just because you feel very moved by a topic, doesn't give you the right to interrupt an event.
Harris hasn't made the protestor shut up because the protest was about Gaza.. but because it was rude.
|
On August 08 2024 19:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2024 19:15 KT_Elwood wrote:
Don't you understand that Israel might be the closest of all military allies to the US? The military cooperation isn't just "giving up weapons for free"..it's a deal to share the most advanced tech.
Trump and protestesters just talk so much crap because they aren't the ones in charge right now. Just like trump solved the middle east in 2016 when sending Jared to handle everything.. oh wait he didn'tn, he just made it worse. It’s pretty one-sided as alliances go let’s be real
The alliance is about more than just two sides.
Pretty sure weapons manufacturers and their buddies get a great deal from both sides, as does anybody who hates muslims and likes to think about them suffering.
|
On August 08 2024 21:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2024 21:48 Ryzel wrote:
Bit late to the “weird”-as-insult discussion, but wanted to throw in that it’s particularly clever because of the different meanings of the word, and the inability of Rs to be able to turn it around on Ds.
It seems clear to me that it’s being used to attack Repubs with the meaning of “skeevy” / “creepy”, which totally tracks. That particular definition can’t be used to attack Ds very well, because Ds typically root that behavior out of their party when it’s dragged into the public sphere (with the notable exception of Biden, but he’s out of the picture now so it’s a moot point. In fact the use of “weird” as an attack started after he resigned from the political sphere, coincidence?).
In addition, it also has the definition of “different”. Lots of people / groups on the left wear the badge of “weird” with pride, and the opposite is true of those on the right. So when that word is used to describe people on the right, they are more likely to get uncomfortable, and if they turn around and use that word to describe those on the left, they’ll just smile and say “we know!”
I’ve noticed that when they use the word “weird” as an attack, it’s not being used with the vitriol typically associated with smear campaigns. Kamala’s not standing at the pulpit shouting to her masses “We must defeat that weirdo Trump and his army of weirdos!” It almost comes off more as tongue-in-cheek, with a bemused smile and eyebrow raise. Which is perfect because it gives the impression “we don’t necessarily have a problem with weird…but you guys are definitely weird”. It plays into the idea that Ds aren’t the one who have a problem with weirdness (in the “different” sense of the word), Rs are, so their usual method of deflection doesn’t work. If/when Rs instead try to counter with pride in their weirdness, they become the antithesis of their core platform of tradition/normalcy, making them ironically more akin to Ds who have always embraced “weirdness”.
It’s a beautifully nuanced and effective line of attack that one really has to admire for its efficacy.
I agree. Democrats do a much better job of embracing diversity (and equity and inclusion), so they don't care that Republicans think it's "weird" to be gay or trans or biracial or own cats or need tampons or want healthcare or desire bodily autonomy or not have children.
Yeah, at first I was like hey, being weird is good, don't come for me like that. But it does seem to be really effective at getting under the skin of people who value conformity above almost everything else.
Also, I'm gonna be paying attention to Vance and his "no direct stake in America" comment. That kind of hard line pro-natalist position is just a short jump away from White Supremacy, and the 14 words. People like Elon Musk believe that having as many children as possible ensures that the next generation is as white as possible, to put it bluntly. I wouldn't be too surprised if Vance is in that camp.
|
Vance married the daughter of Indian immigrants.
|
On August 08 2024 23:03 oBlade wrote:
Vance married the daughter of Indian immigrants.
And yet he's Trump's running mate, who would've banned her family from migrating to the US. What's your point?
|
On August 08 2024 23:03 oBlade wrote:
Vance married the daughter of Indian immigrants. Obviously she’s not a white person…but I love Usha, she’s such a good mom
- JD Vance
Just a perfectly normal way to talk about your spouse...
Why are republicans so weird?
|
Canada11593 Posts
The critical question is why exactly Kamala feels it is right to dismiss the pro-Palestine protestors the way she did. Should she face more, equal or less criticism? I think more, including from Kamala voters. That is the point.
As I understand it, she was interrupted multiple times. She was polite in the first. What is making the rounds is her second (third?) interaction with them where she is being firm. She met with voters concerned about Palestine prior to the rally. Her response in total is fair but of course it's only the last interaction that is going viral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.blaetter.de/sites/default/files/styles/article_mainimage/public/images/ausgaben/2018/02/trumpwalli.jpg?itok=TIMAXCN2)
