|
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 September 16 2024 05:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 05:49 Mohdoo wrote:
I just realized these shots fired around the golf course are horrible for Trump. This will totally be enough of a smoke bomb to kill the momentum against Loomer. I think Loomer is able to hold on against the backlash and remain in his inner circle now. What exactly is going on with Loomer? I keep hearing about how she's insane and also spending a lot of time with Trump, but I don't know how/why it's a big deal all of a sudden. Did something recently happen with her (besides her crazy argument with MTG)? Just Republicans thinking her bat shit crazy conspiracy stuff hurts Trumps campaign and therefor their own chances.
(and they are probably/hopefully right)
This is just the latest spat in the internal struggle within the GOP
|
I think there are rumors that her and Trump are fucking and for whatever reason who/what Trump and JD Vance are fucking seems to be something people like to think about
|
On September 16 2024 05:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2024 22:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:
What’s the grief against Mexican immigrants?
In Europe there is an anti immigrant sentiment that is directed towards Muslims and black people. But i assume the basis for the hostility towards Latino migrants is built on as different basis.
It feels kind of strange from him because you would never have, say, an anti Spanish sentiment in France and the target of the anti immigration sentiment are people who are culturally further away. The grief against migrants, as best as I can tell, is entirely dependent on what region you're in In blue states/cities they are disliked because they are a strain on public resources and other legitimate problems. In red states/cities they are disliked because they are black and brown.
Similar to homelessness and other similar situations where someone is already victimized by society, immigrants are defended dishonestly because of the culture war.
It’s a difficult situation because we’ve seen when you give an inch, republicans take a mile. Holding the line has value. But taking 10 steps back, obviously refugees have costs associated with them. Certain legal immigration efforts are basically just handouts. They are ethical handouts and I support them. But I am disappointed by how the culture war prevents any honest discussion. Many legal immigrants can show up, not know any English, be a huge burden on the cities they live in, but overcome all of that eventually.
I want to emphasize: even extremely unprepared and unskilled immigrants can rise to the challenge and become “profitable” citizens over the course of their lives. But imagine if people refused to admit kids cost money to raise or refused to admit kids have tantrums. These are natural results of the situation and not something to justify abolishing reproduction. But our methods of dealing with children would be much worse if we were forced to pretend kids never have a negative impact on their surroundings.
|
On September 16 2024 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh if the shots were intended for Trump but that the person had to 'get through someone' first and thus had to shoot someone else instead I'm honestly fine with oBlade's description. But my Norwegian media made it seem like it wasn't really related to Trump from my first read, and I'm afraid to revisit the page because I'm watching a football match with 1 hour delay and it'll probably get spoiled if I go there. If that were the case, then it'd be accurate to say that an assassination attempt was foiled, but not that someone actually shot at Trump. oBlade was using it as an example of stochastic terrorism. If someone went to a Trump golf course with the intent to shoot and kill Trump it really doesn't make a difference if the shots intended for Trump were close enough to hit him. Arguing the semantics of "shots intended for Trump" vs "shot at Trump" is kind of silly but it's exponentially more silly when it doesn't even affect oBlade's point. Except oBlade didn't even bother to say who would have hypothetically been creating that stochastic terrorism (and it's not like Harris or Walz are telling people to attack Trump, whereas Trump and Vance are consistently gaslighting their supporters into harming others), so: 1. That hypothetical might not be stochastic terrorism anyway; 2. It. Still. Didn't. Actually. Happen. So oBlade is wrong in two ways. Thanks!
Trust me, I know how it works
Anti-asian violence is caused by Trump saying China Virus
Anti-jewish violence has nothing to do with chants of "From the river to the Sea"
Paul Pelosi getting attacked is caused by vitriol directed at Nancy Pelosi
Trump getting shot has nothing to do with vitriol directed at Trump
|
On September 16 2024 05:57 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh if the shots were intended for Trump but that the person had to 'get through someone' first and thus had to shoot someone else instead I'm honestly fine with oBlade's description. But my Norwegian media made it seem like it wasn't really related to Trump from my first read, and I'm afraid to revisit the page because I'm watching a football match with 1 hour delay and it'll probably get spoiled if I go there. If that were the case, then it'd be accurate to say that an assassination attempt was foiled, but not that someone actually shot at Trump. oBlade was using it as an example of stochastic terrorism. If someone went to a Trump golf course with the intent to shoot and kill Trump it really doesn't make a difference if the shots intended for Trump were close enough to hit him. Arguing the semantics of "shots intended for Trump" vs "shot at Trump" is kind of silly but it's exponentially more silly when it doesn't even affect oBlade's point. Except oBlade didn't even bother to say who would have hypothetically been creating that stochastic terrorism (and it's not like Harris or Walz are telling people to attack Trump, whereas Trump and Vance are consistently gaslighting their supporters into harming others), so: 1. That hypothetical might not be stochastic terrorism anyway; 2. It. Still. Didn't. Actually. Happen. So oBlade is wrong in two ways. Thanks! Trust me, I know how it works Anti-asian violence is caused by Trump saying China Virus Anti-jewish violence has nothing to do with chants of "From the river to the Sea" Paul Pelosi getting attacked is caused by vitriol directed at Nancy Pelosi Trump getting shot has nothing to do with vitriol directed at Trump
Part strawman, part whatabout. Well played.
|
On September 16 2024 05:57 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh if the shots were intended for Trump but that the person had to 'get through someone' first and thus had to shoot someone else instead I'm honestly fine with oBlade's description. But my Norwegian media made it seem like it wasn't really related to Trump from my first read, and I'm afraid to revisit the page because I'm watching a football match with 1 hour delay and it'll probably get spoiled if I go there. If that were the case, then it'd be accurate to say that an assassination attempt was foiled, but not that someone actually shot at Trump. oBlade was using it as an example of stochastic terrorism. If someone went to a Trump golf course with the intent to shoot and kill Trump it really doesn't make a difference if the shots intended for Trump were close enough to hit him. Arguing the semantics of "shots intended for Trump" vs "shot at Trump" is kind of silly but it's exponentially more silly when it doesn't even affect oBlade's point. Except oBlade didn't even bother to say who would have hypothetically been creating that stochastic terrorism (and it's not like Harris or Walz are telling people to attack Trump, whereas Trump and Vance are consistently gaslighting their supporters into harming others), so: 1. That hypothetical might not be stochastic terrorism anyway; 2. It. Still. Didn't. Actually. Happen. So oBlade is wrong in two ways. Thanks! Trust me, I know how it works Anti-asian violence is caused by Trump saying China Virus Anti-jewish violence has nothing to do with chants of "From the river to the Sea" Paul Pelosi getting attacked is caused by vitriol directed at Nancy Pelosi Trump getting shot has nothing to do with vitriol directed at Trump
What do you mean by shooting "at" Trump? For all we know, the guy could have aimed at the grass on the golf course. Trump standing on that piece of grass could have been a pure accident.
|
On September 16 2024 06:21 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh if the shots were intended for Trump but that the person had to 'get through someone' first and thus had to shoot someone else instead I'm honestly fine with oBlade's description. But my Norwegian media made it seem like it wasn't really related to Trump from my first read, and I'm afraid to revisit the page because I'm watching a football match with 1 hour delay and it'll probably get spoiled if I go there. If that were the case, then it'd be accurate to say that an assassination attempt was foiled, but not that someone actually shot at Trump. oBlade was using it as an example of stochastic terrorism. If someone went to a Trump golf course with the intent to shoot and kill Trump it really doesn't make a difference if the shots intended for Trump were close enough to hit him. Arguing the semantics of "shots intended for Trump" vs "shot at Trump" is kind of silly but it's exponentially more silly when it doesn't even affect oBlade's point. Except oBlade didn't even bother to say who would have hypothetically been creating that stochastic terrorism (and it's not like Harris or Walz are telling people to attack Trump, whereas Trump and Vance are consistently gaslighting their supporters into harming others), so: 1. That hypothetical might not be stochastic terrorism anyway; 2. It. Still. Didn't. Actually. Happen. So oBlade is wrong in two ways. Thanks! Trust me, I know how it works Anti-asian violence is caused by Trump saying China Virus Anti-jewish violence has nothing to do with chants of "From the river to the Sea" Paul Pelosi getting attacked is caused by vitriol directed at Nancy Pelosi Trump getting shot has nothing to do with vitriol directed at Trump What do you mean by shooting "at" Trump? For all we know, the guy could have aimed at the grass on the golf course. Trump standing on that piece of grass could have been a pure accident. latest news is that it probably was another assassination attempt, guy hiding in bushes with an ak, shot at by SS when spotted.
|
Sorry, I should have added "/s".
|
Last I checked Nancy Pelosi had no plans of instating a dictatorship and she also didn't lie her ass off about dangerous foreigners ten times per day.
There's a reason why people attempted to assassinate Hitler at least 42 times, while the total count for Merkel was 1. Should we argue this was because of A) vitriol being directed at Hitler or B) vitriol directed at Untermenschen by Hitler? Which one was the more likely reason?
|
On September 16 2024 06:28 Magic Powers wrote:
Last I checked Nancy Pelosi had no plans of instating a dictatorship and she also didn't lie her ass off about dangerous foreigners ten times per day.
There's a reason why people attempted to assassinate Hitler at least 42 times, while the total count for Merkel was 1. Should we argue this was because of A) vitriol being directed at Hitler or B) vitriol directed at Untermenschen by Hitler? Which one was the more likely reason?
Right, I forgot Trump was a legitimate target for assassination
|
Who's the bigger threat to democracy, Donald 'you'll never have to vote again' Trump or the would-be assassin in the bush?
|
On September 16 2024 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
Who's the bigger threat to democracy, Donald 'you'll never have to vote again' Trump or the would-be assassin in the bush?
Probably apologists for assassins of candidates in Democratic elections
|
On September 16 2024 06:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
Who's the bigger threat to democracy, Donald 'you'll never have to vote again' Trump or the would-be assassin in the bush? Probably apologists for assassins of candidates in Democratic elections
That wasn't one of the options!
Besides, "The people I'm currently arguing with on a niche video game forum" is an absolutely terrible answer.
|
On September 16 2024 05:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 05:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:49 Mohdoo wrote:
I just realized these shots fired around the golf course are horrible for Trump. This will totally be enough of a smoke bomb to kill the momentum against Loomer. I think Loomer is able to hold on against the backlash and remain in his inner circle now. What exactly is going on with Loomer? I keep hearing about how she's insane and also spending a lot of time with Trump, but I don't know how/why it's a big deal all of a sudden. Did something recently happen with her (besides her crazy argument with MTG)? Just Republicans thinking her bat shit crazy conspiracy stuff hurts Trumps campaign and therefor their own chances. (and they are probably/hopefully right) This is just the latest spat in the internal struggle within the GOP
On September 16 2024 05:55 BlackJack wrote:
I think there are rumors that her and Trump are fucking and for whatever reason who/what Trump and JD Vance are fucking seems to be something people like to think about
Thanks for the responses! It appears that Laura Loomer also said that the White House “will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center” if Harris wins the presidential election. ( https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/vance-laura-loomer-comments-kamala-curry-haitian-migrants-pets-rcna171139 )
JD Vance spoke out against that racist attack by Loomer. It seems that Vance is happy to enable and make racist statements as long as they aren't about Indian/Indian-American heritage, perhaps since his wife is also Indian-American.
|
On September 16 2024 06:44 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 06:41 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
Who's the bigger threat to democracy, Donald 'you'll never have to vote again' Trump or the would-be assassin in the bush? Probably apologists for assassins of candidates in Democratic elections That wasn't one of the options! Besides, "The people I'm currently arguing with on a niche video game forum" is an absolutely terrible answer.
Election deniers are the biggest threat to American Democracy as far as I can tell. Since Trump is chief among them then as a single entity he is arguably the biggest threat to Democracy.
But I think an equally large threat if not greater threat is the ability justify extreme measures in the other direction using the threat of Trump or any other supposed existential threat as justification.
I'm more worried of the tens of millions of people on the left that would happily support rounding up and imprisoning people for their "dangerous beliefs" than I am of Trump doing the same.
|
On September 16 2024 06:21 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 16 2024 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh if the shots were intended for Trump but that the person had to 'get through someone' first and thus had to shoot someone else instead I'm honestly fine with oBlade's description. But my Norwegian media made it seem like it wasn't really related to Trump from my first read, and I'm afraid to revisit the page because I'm watching a football match with 1 hour delay and it'll probably get spoiled if I go there. If that were the case, then it'd be accurate to say that an assassination attempt was foiled, but not that someone actually shot at Trump. oBlade was using it as an example of stochastic terrorism. If someone went to a Trump golf course with the intent to shoot and kill Trump it really doesn't make a difference if the shots intended for Trump were close enough to hit him. Arguing the semantics of "shots intended for Trump" vs "shot at Trump" is kind of silly but it's exponentially more silly when it doesn't even affect oBlade's point. Except oBlade didn't even bother to say who would have hypothetically been creating that stochastic terrorism (and it's not like Harris or Walz are telling people to attack Trump, whereas Trump and Vance are consistently gaslighting their supporters into harming others), so: 1. That hypothetical might not be stochastic terrorism anyway; 2. It. Still. Didn't. Actually. Happen. So oBlade is wrong in two ways. Thanks! Trust me, I know how it works Anti-asian violence is caused by Trump saying China Virus Anti-jewish violence has nothing to do with chants of "From the river to the Sea" Paul Pelosi getting attacked is caused by vitriol directed at Nancy Pelosi Trump getting shot has nothing to do with vitriol directed at Trump What do you mean by shooting "at" Trump? For all we know, the guy could have aimed at the grass on the golf course. Trump standing on that piece of grass could have been a pure accident.
On September 16 2024 06:27 Elroi wrote:
Sorry, I should have added "/s".
Your sarcasm about semantics is misguided here. No one is making that excuse - that the gunner actually shot at the grass underneath Trump and that doesn't count as shooting at Trump. That's not even close to what actually happened. The gunner didn't shoot at Trump, nor the grass underneath Trump.
|
On September 16 2024 07:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 06:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2024 06:41 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2024 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
Who's the bigger threat to democracy, Donald 'you'll never have to vote again' Trump or the would-be assassin in the bush? Probably apologists for assassins of candidates in Democratic elections That wasn't one of the options! Besides, "The people I'm currently arguing with on a niche video game forum" is an absolutely terrible answer. 1: Election deniers are the biggest threat to American Democracy as far as I can tell. Since Trump is chief among them then as a single entity he is arguably the biggest threat to Democracy. 2: But I think an equally large threat if not greater threat is the ability justify extreme measures in the other direction using the threat of Trump or any other supposed existential threat as justification. 3: I'm more worried of the tens of millions of people on the left that would happily support rounding up and imprisoning people for their "dangerous beliefs" than I am of Trump doing the same.
I numbered your points for easy responses:
1: Weirdly, me being a Trump hater, I would go the other way. Assassination is just about the most anti-democratic thing that can be done. Its worse than election denial imho, because it doesn't (in this case anyway) even give the public the opportunity to vote for their candidate.
2: Good point, and it shows what a clusterfuck this whole election and the ever escalating rhetoric around it are.
3: This is an invitation for whataboutism, so don't mind if i take you up on it by reminding you of the NRA videos of a few years ago basically declaring war on anyone who disagrees with them and encouraging the US gun toting public to take up arms against their political enemies, and how many people on the right thought that this was completely justifiable.
I put the blame squarely in Trump's court for how far the situation in the US has escalated, but at the same time it take two to tango, right?
|
Assuming the man has been properly identified, we're 2 for 2 for disaffected Trumpers being involved in potential assassination attempts. If anything, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire are probably getting a visit from the FBI for previously advocating the use of the 2nd Amendment to murder Kamala Harris and now advocating the general use.
Re: the Laura Loomer stuff. The pertinent thing isn't that there's maybe a sexual relationship between two consenting adults (beyond telling us that evangelicals don't give a shit about anything Trump does) but that Trump's circle is so small and insular in 2024 that the only people he's associating with are power hungry brown nosers. It just so happens a good chunk of said power hungry brown nosers are happily associate themselves with white white supremacists and groypers in general. The campaign and messaging is so groyper coded that everything feels straight from /pol/.
Its obvious now that JD Vance wasn't a mistake, he was picked because he's so craven that he'd do anything for power. If that means throwing his own state and constituents under the bus to make a political point instead of doing *anything* to improve infrastructure and encourage further investment into Ohio, so be it.
|
On September 16 2024 07:56 frontgarden2222 wrote:
Assuming the man has been properly identified, we're 2 for 2 for disaffected Trumpers being involved in potential assassination attempts.
For as much as I hate Trump, I'm also happy that this second assassination attempt was foiled. I'd much rather have him lose on Election Day. If he wins the election... then I still would prefer him to die of natural causes, rather than him being assassinated.
If anything, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire are probably getting a visit from the FBI for previously advocating the use of the 2nd Amendment to murder Kamala Harris and now advocating the general use.
Yeah, they wrote "Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero", then took down the tweet not because it was morally wrong, but because:
"We deleted a tweet because we don't want to break the terms of this website we agreed to. It's a shame that even on a "free speech" website that libertarians cannot speak freely. Libertarians are truly the most oppressed minority."
https://x.com/ColinGBooth/status/1835313789320769567/photo/1
https://x.com/LPNH/status/1835310685095628880
They need to fuck allll the way off.
|
On September 16 2024 06:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2024 06:28 Magic Powers wrote:
Last I checked Nancy Pelosi had no plans of instating a dictatorship and she also didn't lie her ass off about dangerous foreigners ten times per day.
There's a reason why people attempted to assassinate Hitler at least 42 times, while the total count for Merkel was 1. Should we argue this was because of A) vitriol being directed at Hitler or B) vitriol directed at Untermenschen by Hitler? Which one was the more likely reason? Right, I forgot Trump was a legitimate target for assassination
Understanding why several people would attempt to assassinate Trump but not Kamala doesn't mean condoning the assassination attempts. I thought this should go without saying, so I didn't think of clarifying it. My bad I guess.
Trump doesn't deserve to get assassinated, and he shouldn't. It'll be healthy for democracy when he loses, as it'll put the ball back in the Republican corner to stop being so radical and weird and creepy all the time. But I won't pretend these assassination attempts of a fascist were totally unexpected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
