|
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 23:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Well, the value of a woman to a Republican is usually directly tied to how effective a mother they are. They're trying to outlaw both abortion and divorce, so that women are compelled by the state to have as many children as the husband wants.
Kind of weird if you ask me.
|
On August 08 2024 23:03 oBlade wrote:
Vance married the daughter of Indian immigrants.
Much to Trump's chagrin, surely.
|
On August 08 2024 23:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +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?
There's no evidence Trump would have banned legal immigration from India even if he had (had) the power, which you seem to be implying he didn't have, as he didn't do it.
Having children is a biological function available to almost every human at some point during their lives, it's not exclusive to white people, so having children is not white supremacist. The family is the single foundation of all human civilization, and any country that stops having children disappears. People with biracial children are best assumed not to be white supremacist without significant evidence to the contrary.
|
On August 08 2024 23:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2024 23:05 NewSunshine wrote: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? There's no evidence Trump would have banned legal immigration from India even if he had (had) the power, which you seem to be implying he didn't have, as he didn't do it. Having children is a biological function available to almost every human at some point during their lives, it's not exclusive to white people, so having children is not white supremacist. The family is the single foundation of all human civilization, and any country that stops having children disappears. People with biracial children are best assumed not to be white supremacist without significant evidence to the contrary.
I said "would've" because unless Trump had a time machine he couldn't prevent her parents from migrating. He still implemented a Muslim travel ban when he was in office. Get your reading comprehension in gear, this isn't my problem to solve for you.
"No evidence". Are you hoping we all live under the same kind of rock that you do?
And that attitude towards child bearing absolutely has white supremacist associations. A country of 100,000,000+ people isn't going to disappear overnight because some people aren't having kids. But some of us do fear mongering about how white people are being replaced in this country, and so they try to de-value people who don't have children. I could also go into the angle of how having children often anchors mothers to their husbands, and how detrimental that can be if it wasn't her decision to do so. Saying people who don't have kids don't have a stake in America is toxic on several levels.
What would you say to the idea of childless people having less of a vote, and what would you then say to 18 year olds who are of perfectly legal voting age? Do they have to get married and get pregnant at 17 in order for their votes to count? That's what Vance is suggesting.
|
On August 08 2024 17:55 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2024 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
So Harris encountered her first anti-genocide protesters and promptly threatened them with Trump if they didn't shut up about opposing genocide.
Feels a little early to be pulling that. Didn't think she'd immediately go to being even more dismissive than Biden's been of these protesters. She is right. I don't think that is helping their case. Palestine is a divisive subject on the center-left, but now it is time to stay united to keep Trump out of the White House. Kamala can be pushed if she is elected.
She IS as likely to be pushed as Biden was. So zero.
But i Guess a female candidate running on "atleast i am not Trump" is going to go really far.
|
On August 08 2024 23:41 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2024 17:55 Slydie wrote:On August 08 2024 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:So Harris encountered her first anti-genocide protesters and promptly threatened them with Trump if they didn't shut up about opposing genocide. https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1821342048923844884Feels a little early to be pulling that. Didn't think she'd immediately go to being even more dismissive than Biden's been of these protesters. She is right. I don't think that is helping their case. Palestine is a divisive subject on the center-left, but now it is time to stay united to keep Trump out of the White House. Kamala can be pushed if she is elected. She IS as likely to be pushed as Biden was. So zero. But i Guess a female candidate running on "atleast i am not Trump" is going to go really far.
You haven't watched Harris or Walz speak if you think they're just running on not being Trump. This is a bad take. She was absolutely right to say that if we don't stick together that Trump will win again. That doesn't mean that's her platform.
|
Another nickname for JD Vance is trending: Vladimir Futon.
|
On August 08 2024 23:40 NewSunshine wrote:
I said "would've" because unless Trump had a time machine he couldn't prevent her parents from migrating. He still implemented a Muslim travel ban when he was in office. Get your reading comprehension in gear, this isn't my problem to solve for you.
Usha Vance's parents are not Muslim, nor did Drumpf ban Muslims when he was in office (he banned travel from 7 countries for a period, reduced refugee admissions, and canceled issuance of certain visas). If he didn't ban contemporary Indian immigration, why am I to believe he would go through the effort to build a time machine just to ban his VP's parents from immigrating?
On August 08 2024 23:40 NewSunshine wrote:
And that attitude towards child bearing absolutely has white supremacist associations. A country of 100,000,000+ people isn't going to disappear overnight because some people aren't having kids. But some of us do fear mongering about how white people are being replaced in this country, and so they try to de-value people who don't have children. I could also go into the angle of how having children often anchors mothers to their husbands, and how detrimental that can be if it wasn't her decision to do so. Saying people who don't have kids don't have a stake in America is toxic on several levels.
America has over 300 million people, unless for some reason you're only counting the white ones. People having children is better in the long run for one's family, one's country, society, and the economy, than not.
The world temperature is not going to boil the oceans overnight just because I'm driving a car instead of riding a bike, but you might nevertheless consider it to be a pressing issue on what you would consider to be a predictable, and certainly not geologic, timeframe.
On August 08 2024 23:40 NewSunshine wrote:
What would you say to the idea of childless people having less of a vote, and what would you then say to 18 year olds who are of perfectly legal voting age? Do they have to get married and get pregnant at 17 in order for their votes to count? That's what Vance is suggesting.
That's an interesting statement, I'd never heard it, probably because it didn't make it past my "should give a shit" filter as VPs can't change the class of voters, that'd require a Constitutional amendment. I did watch the Republican Convention though - did pregnant voting make it to the official platform? It's a little too radical for me, I support a simple paid-taxes qualification for voting. But I can't personally condemn a notion that upsets people who want to destroy a country, by suggesting that they shouldn't have a say in its future.
|
This whole situation is so fascinating. Republicans are legitimately very not ok with the couch jokes and the general "weird" jokes. This isn't even some kind of "did I trigger you, snowflake!?!?!?" operation like right wingers were using for so long. Its not like the goal is just to make them as upset as possible.
Before and during the Trump presidency, there was an enormous emphasis placed on "triggering libtards" and other such things. The whole idea of offending and upsetting left wing people was a huge focus in major news network coverage too. And that was a focused, direct, intentional effort.
Compare that to this whole couch and weird thing. Its playful, silly, and inherently non-serious. Democrats are highlighting how weird many perspectives of Trump and Vance have. And how weird they are as people. But I never would have expected the right wing would respond this way. I could understand this level of outrage if it was cutting a lot deeper, leaning into it in a more aggressive way, or just putting more focus on "triggering" or "offending" them. But that's what makes this all so goofy.
Now that I am typing this out and thinking about it more, what if THAT is actually what is so offensive to them? What if the part of this that is so infuriating is the realization that they are actually being mocked and people actually think they are dumb and weird?
I'll try to be more direct: When you realize someone isn't *trying* to be condescending, but more so legitimately thinks you are weird and non-serious, it doesn't feel like a brawl anymore. It starts to feel more like when a parent is trying to de-escalate a tense situation when their kid is having a tantrum. Realizing they are being viewed that way *GENUINELY* is probably what makes this burn so much.
|
On August 08 2024 20:56 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
No one dragging Democrats over their support of genocide has it as their only issue. It's just the most obviously egregious example of Democrats inhumanity accompanied by some of their most pathetic rationalizations.
|
On August 09 2024 00:07 oBlade wrote:
But I can't personally condemn a notion that upsets people who want to destroy a country, by suggesting that they shouldn't have a say in its future.
People who don't have children are not a monolith of people who "want to destroy a country" by not having children. That's probably the most vile thing I've read all day.
|
On August 08 2024 23:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Another nickname for JD Vance is trending: Vladimir Futon.
I hear he'll have fresh opinions for the Republican party when it comes to judges legislating from the couch.
|
On August 09 2024 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole situation is so fascinating. Republicans are legitimately very not ok with the couch jokes and the general "weird" jokes. This isn't even some kind of "did I trigger you, snowflake!?!?!?" operation like right wingers were using for so long. Its not like the goal is just to make them as upset as possible.
Before and during the Trump presidency, there was an enormous emphasis placed on "triggering libtards" and other such things. The whole idea of offending and upsetting left wing people was a huge focus in major news network coverage too. And that was a focused, direct, intentional effort.
Compare that to this whole couch and weird thing. Its playful, silly, and inherently non-serious. Democrats are highlighting how weird many perspectives of Trump and Vance have. And how weird they are as people. But I never would have expected the right wing would respond this way. I could understand this level of outrage if it was cutting a lot deeper, leaning into it in a more aggressive way, or just putting more focus on "triggering" or "offending" them. But that's what makes this all so goofy.
Now that I am typing this out and thinking about it more, what if THAT is actually what is so offensive to them? What if the part of this that is so infuriating is the realization that they are actually being mocked and people actually think they are dumb and weird?
I'll try to be more direct: When you realize someone isn't *trying* to be condescending, but more so legitimately thinks you are weird and non-serious, it doesn't feel like a brawl anymore. It starts to feel more like when a parent is trying to de-escalate a tense situation when their kid is having a tantrum. Realizing they are being viewed that way *GENUINELY* is probably what makes this burn so much.
This is one of those times I wish I could pull a Kamala and be unburdened by what had been, or more accurately, by what I know. I don't know how you couldn't know this, but conservatives are used to be being mocked and slandered by the most influential parts of the culture for decades. It's so strange that libs feel like they've caught onto something here, I think this is more akin to something thst makes them feel good and it helps to believe that their opponents are extra offended by it. I think it has some resonance only because the charge ir hilarious when compared to the people making the accusation lol. It goes right along with the never stated but always present left-wing assumption that anyone who still believes things that became unpopular 5 minutes ago is a bad person. But this dust up is flavor of the week, without the backing of any sort of concrete source, so it makes the whole thing more ambiguous. I think the lack of a concrete underpinning (true or not) makes it feel different.
|
On August 09 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole situation is so fascinating. Republicans are legitimately very not ok with the couch jokes and the general "weird" jokes. This isn't even some kind of "did I trigger you, snowflake!?!?!?" operation like right wingers were using for so long. Its not like the goal is just to make them as upset as possible.
Before and during the Trump presidency, there was an enormous emphasis placed on "triggering libtards" and other such things. The whole idea of offending and upsetting left wing people was a huge focus in major news network coverage too. And that was a focused, direct, intentional effort.
Compare that to this whole couch and weird thing. Its playful, silly, and inherently non-serious. Democrats are highlighting how weird many perspectives of Trump and Vance have. And how weird they are as people. But I never would have expected the right wing would respond this way. I could understand this level of outrage if it was cutting a lot deeper, leaning into it in a more aggressive way, or just putting more focus on "triggering" or "offending" them. But that's what makes this all so goofy.
Now that I am typing this out and thinking about it more, what if THAT is actually what is so offensive to them? What if the part of this that is so infuriating is the realization that they are actually being mocked and people actually think they are dumb and weird?
I'll try to be more direct: When you realize someone isn't *trying* to be condescending, but more so legitimately thinks you are weird and non-serious, it doesn't feel like a brawl anymore. It starts to feel more like when a parent is trying to de-escalate a tense situation when their kid is having a tantrum. Realizing they are being viewed that way *GENUINELY* is probably what makes this burn so much. This is one of those times I wish I could pull a Kamala and be unburdened by what had been, or more accurately, by what I know. I don't know how you couldn't know this, but conservatives are used to be being mocked and slandered by the most influential parts of the culture for decades. It's so strange that libs feel like they've caught onto something here, I think this is more akin to something thst makes them feel good and it helps to believe that their opponents are extra offended by it. I think it has some resonance only because the charge ir hilarious when compared to the people making the accusation lol. It goes right along with the never stated but always present left-wing assumption that anyone who still believes things that became unpopular 5 minutes ago is a bad person. But this dust up is flavor of the week, without the backing of any sort of concrete source, so it makes the whole thing more ambiguous. I think the lack of a concrete underpinning (true or not) makes it feel different.
I agree it is of course easy for both left and right wing folks to dismiss the other side calling them Hitler/fascists/unamerican/hateful and all the usual stuff. All of that stuff is normalized and slides right off of everyone. Both sides just shrug and label it partisan messaging.
Maybe I am wrong, but both Trump and Vance appear to be focused on fighting the "weird" label more than they have fought against any other label. There appears to be a dynamic surrounding "weird" that was not present for other labels.
My 2 cents: democrats having a "reset" by replacing Biden with Harris snapped everyone out of normalizing both candidates. Harris showed people this situation is totally editable. Its not just a matter of swallowing the shit that's put on your spoon. Democrats traded out their very shitty candidate for a very good candidate. This moment of re-examination makes the "weird" label very easy for people to understand and agree with. Voters re-examining the situation and realizing how non-serious the Trump+Vance ticket is, is really bad for their campaign.
|
On August 09 2024 03:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2024 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole situation is so fascinating. Republicans are legitimately very not ok with the couch jokes and the general "weird" jokes. This isn't even some kind of "did I trigger you, snowflake!?!?!?" operation like right wingers were using for so long. Its not like the goal is just to make them as upset as possible.
Before and during the Trump presidency, there was an enormous emphasis placed on "triggering libtards" and other such things. The whole idea of offending and upsetting left wing people was a huge focus in major news network coverage too. And that was a focused, direct, intentional effort.
Compare that to this whole couch and weird thing. Its playful, silly, and inherently non-serious. Democrats are highlighting how weird many perspectives of Trump and Vance have. And how weird they are as people. But I never would have expected the right wing would respond this way. I could understand this level of outrage if it was cutting a lot deeper, leaning into it in a more aggressive way, or just putting more focus on "triggering" or "offending" them. But that's what makes this all so goofy.
Now that I am typing this out and thinking about it more, what if THAT is actually what is so offensive to them? What if the part of this that is so infuriating is the realization that they are actually being mocked and people actually think they are dumb and weird?
I'll try to be more direct: When you realize someone isn't *trying* to be condescending, but more so legitimately thinks you are weird and non-serious, it doesn't feel like a brawl anymore. It starts to feel more like when a parent is trying to de-escalate a tense situation when their kid is having a tantrum. Realizing they are being viewed that way *GENUINELY* is probably what makes this burn so much. This is one of those times I wish I could pull a Kamala and be unburdened by what had been, or more accurately, by what I know. I don't know how you couldn't know this, but conservatives are used to be being mocked and slandered by the most influential parts of the culture for decades. It's so strange that libs feel like they've caught onto something here, I think this is more akin to something thst makes them feel good and it helps to believe that their opponents are extra offended by it. I think it has some resonance only because the charge ir hilarious when compared to the people making the accusation lol. It goes right along with the never stated but always present left-wing assumption that anyone who still believes things that became unpopular 5 minutes ago is a bad person. But this dust up is flavor of the week, without the backing of any sort of concrete source, so it makes the whole thing more ambiguous. I think the lack of a concrete underpinning (true or not) makes it feel different. I agree it is of course easy for both left and right wing folks to dismiss the other side calling them Hitler/fascists/unamerican/hateful and all the usual stuff. All of that stuff is normalized and slides right off of everyone. Both sides just shrug and label it partisan messaging. Maybe I am wrong, but both Trump and Vance appear to be focused on fighting the "weird" label more than they have fought against any other label. There appears to be a dynamic surrounding "weird" that was not present for other labels. My 2 cents: democrats having a "reset" by replacing Biden with Harris snapped everyone out of normalizing both candidates. Harris showed people this situation is totally editable. Its not just a matter of swallowing the shit that's put on your spoon. Democrats traded out their very shitty candidate for a very good candidate. This moment of re-examination makes the "weird" label very easy for people to understand and agree with. Voters re-examining the situation and realizing how non-serious the Trump+Vance ticket is, is really bad for their campaign.
Eh I don't think Trump and Vance have mentioned it too much, except when asked? It's something that keeps being brought up to Vance at least, they seem more interested in talking about Kamala and Walz, as we've seen here. Thr couch thing has more play on social media, which is why it was...interesting for Walz to bring it up at all. I think they are trying to avoid it to be honest, most of the stuff I've seen including ads don't mention it much, but I don't see them all. Nor sure if Trump has ever referred to it (maybe on Truth Social?) Trust me though as someone more plugged into righty media, I don't see any scared of "weird" honestly most of thr chatter is how dems are the weird ones with far out positions. Though I suppose some ultra Trumpers get offended at everything
Kamala hasn't done a single interview yet and has barely spoken off teleprompter since being anointed with no primary votes. She has avoided talking policy for the most part, except for trying to disown some of her far left positions from 2020 via press release. So far the entire thing has been the media fawning over her (seriously haven't seen this level of media love since, what, 2008? But even Obama had some criticism). Let's see how her bumbling self does if she is ever actually put to the test.
|
On August 09 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 00:07 oBlade wrote:
But I can't personally condemn a notion that upsets people who want to destroy a country, by suggesting that they shouldn't have a say in its future. People who don't have children are not a monolith of people who "want to destroy a country" by not having children. That's probably the most vile thing I've read all day.
oBlade, are you truly referring to childless Americans here? Because it sounds like it, based on what Vance said about them. Just asking for clarification.
|
|
|
Vance and anyone criticizing or condeming Americans who cannot or choose not have children can absolutely fuck off. Kamala has adopted children but those dont count either apparently.
|
Technically it's a new offer for 3 debates from Trump for Harris to accept or decline.
Former President Donald Trump told reporters at a press conference that he has agreed to three debates in September hosted by Fox, NBC and ABC. He said CBS will also host a debate between the vice presidential candidates.
www.nbcnews.com
|
On August 09 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Technically it's a new offer for 3 debates from Trump for Harris to accept or decline. Show nested quote +Former President Donald Trump told reporters at a press conference that he has agreed to three debates in September hosted by Fox, NBC and ABC. He said CBS will also host a debate between the vice presidential candidates. www.nbcnews.com
Can Harris agree to just the 2 debates moderated by real news organizations, and decline the Fox one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
