EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4450
| 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 | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
| ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7710 Posts
On October 17 2024 20:45 oBlade wrote: Most in the thread probably don't actually live in the US which would fortunately make the result of a US election not their business and therefore any emotional burden unwarranted. A a citizen of a NATO member state, it is very much in my interest to be aware of who is likely to be the next president of the US. Also while many would like for it to be otherwise, for better or worse the US is still the biggest superpower in the world, and when it coughs, most of the world gets sick too. It's short sighted and provincial to think that the results of the presidential elections in the US should be of no concern to the rest of the world. | ||
|
Byo
Canada205 Posts
On October 17 2024 20:45 oBlade wrote: Most in the thread probably don't actually live in the US which would fortunately make the result of a US election not their business and therefore any emotional burden unwarranted. While normally I would agree, but speaking from experience, when Trump is president it literally feels like you live in the US regardless of where you physically live due to the media and the outlandish things he does. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2639 Posts
On October 17 2024 22:14 PoulsenB wrote: A a citizen of a NATO member state, it is very much in my interest to be aware of who is likely to be the next president of the US. Also while many would like for it to be otherwise, for better or worse the US is still the biggest superpower in the world, and when it coughs, most of the world gets sick too. It's short sighted and provincial to think that the results of the presidential elections in the US should be of no concern to the rest of the world. What the US does, the rest of the world gets splashed with the shit that follows. People with money influence politics all over the world, and lots of them are American. E.g. American Christian groups in Africa campaigning hard against condoms, to putting money into reviving the abortion debate in Europe. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13859 Posts
I do get this when talking to my conservative relatives that do not understand that trumps proposed tariffs are going to be retaliated against by the countries he's going to tariff. You see farmers that were devastated by trumps spat with China going whole hog on Trump again when he's promising the thing you almost killed yourself over but on a bigger scale. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23131 Posts
On October 17 2024 20:12 WombaT wrote: As a very open-ended question, how do some of you feel to live in a nation where Trump can conceivably win an election? Some, probably not many in this particular thread are excited by the prospect. I assume most here, less so. But is the prospect something that genuinely depresses you and makes one question one’s fellow citizens, or something shit but ‘hey that’s democracy in action baby’ Trump winning isn't really a surprise to me. Based on the conduct of the US I agree with Baldwin that it's run by moral monsters and I'd say has been for its entire existence. Trump is the epitome of the US as a human. Now 21st century libs rationalizing their own support of genocide, I admit, that has been a bit of a bummer. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2589 Posts
On October 17 2024 20:45 oBlade wrote: Most in the thread probably don't actually live in the US which would fortunately make the result of a US election not their business and therefore any emotional burden unwarranted. If he was pro-Ukraine I honestly wouldn't care. But it looks like the US won't honor their words and agreements on shit they pushed the EU to do. So it definitely involves everyone in Europe. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2532 Posts
On October 17 2024 20:12 WombaT wrote: As a very open-ended question, how do some of you feel to live in a nation where Trump can conceivably win an election? Some, probably not many in this particular thread are excited by the prospect. I assume most here, less so. But is the prospect something that genuinely depresses you and makes one question one’s fellow citizens, or something shit but ‘hey that’s democracy in action baby’ I wrote a contrived response that answered this question, but deleted it because my answer was stupid. I don't have a better answer, so here we go. Imagine the NFL was a part of the US political system. The thing that matters most to how the US and the NFL is run every year is who wins the superbowl. For a lot of people, it's an exciting event and cheering on your favourite team is a great part of the year. For a whole lot of people, football is awful and boring and you resent having to participate in it at all. Enter Trump. He's not playing the game 'honorably', stretches the rules of the game at every turn, is obviously corrupt, and is still somehow winning. If you hate the NFL and the fact that you've had to participate in it for years despite it not representing you, cheering on the person that's shifting the paradigm and promises to radically change the NFL if he wins the superbowl again makes some sense. Trump's a deplorable moron. I do think his popularity highlights some major flaws in the structures of the US and how well it represents its own people, and I don't see much hope for positive change going forwards. (This is still stupid. Sorry.) | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9605 Posts
On October 18 2024 04:54 Fleetfeet wrote: I wrote a contrived response that answered this question, but deleted it because my answer was stupid. I don't have a better answer, so here we go. Imagine the NFL was a part of the US political system. The thing that matters most to how the US and the NFL is run every year is who wins the superbowl. For a lot of people, it's an exciting event and cheering on your favourite team is a great part of the year. For a whole lot of people, football is awful and boring and you resent having to participate in it at all. Enter Trump. He's not playing the game 'honorably', stretches the rules of the game at every turn, is obviously corrupt, and is still somehow winning. If you hate the NFL and the fact that you've had to participate in it for years despite it not representing you, cheering on the person that's shifting the paradigm and promises to radically change the NFL if he wins the superbowl again makes some sense. Trump's a deplorable moron. I do think his popularity highlights some major flaws in the structures of the US and how well it represents its own people, and I don't see much hope for positive change going forwards. (This is still stupid. Sorry.) I'd be more sympathetic in this hypothetical situation if Trump hadn't already had his turn running the NFL, after promising to radically change it, and changed absolutely nothing of note. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2532 Posts
On October 18 2024 04:56 Jockmcplop wrote: I'd be more sympathetic in this hypothetical situation if Trump hadn't already had his turn running the NFL, after promising to radically change it, and changed absolutely nothing of note. Jan 6, supreme court, roe v wade. Him making a solid attempt at declaring himself the winner of a superbowl he lost because he, at the time, ran the NFL seems pretty of note to me. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9605 Posts
On October 18 2024 05:02 Fleetfeet wrote: Jan 6, supreme court, roe v wade. Him making a solid attempt at declaring himself the winner of a superbowl he lost because he, at the time, ran the NFL seems pretty of note to me. I didn't say he didn't DO anything of note, he didn't CHANGE anything of note. America is still beholden to the same people as it was before. The 'swamp' has not been drained. Everything political in the US works the same way now as it did before. Its the same, no change. Laws change, but they can easily be changed back. When someone talks about radical change you would surely expect that to mean more than 'its harder to get abortions now'. Radical change means the fundamental way that things work change at the deepest level and a new paradigm happens. | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
On October 18 2024 05:06 Jockmcplop wrote: I didn't say he didn't DO anything of note, he didn't CHANGE anything of note. America is still beholden to the same people as it was before. The 'swamp' has not been drained. Everything political in the US works the same way now as it did before. Its the same, no change. Laws change, but they can easily be changed back. When someone talks about radical change you would surely expect that to mean more than 'its harder to get abortions now'. Radical change means the fundamental way that things work change at the deepest level and a new paradigm happens. Arguably the Supreme Court's immunity decision is a massive change in the power that the office of the Presidency holds. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13859 Posts
On October 18 2024 04:56 Jockmcplop wrote: I'd be more sympathetic in this hypothetical situation if Trump hadn't already had his turn running the NFL, after promising to radically change it, and changed absolutely nothing of note. His changes to nafta are now the main problems he has with nafta. He changed vaccine science forever, advancing it a leap forward, unfortunately at the cost of a lot of his supporters now not supporting vaccines. It would be like if they fixed kickoffs causing injuries, at the cost of them being even worse for entertainment. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On October 17 2024 16:01 zeo wrote: I think the main reason why she bombed so hard is because her campaign shortened the interview from 30 to 20min and she didnt have enough time to go into details because they had to go though a lot. Still wild how she was this unprepared, the tone of the interview wasnt even that confrontational Not so sure about that reasoning but Reuters is reporting Harris may also do a spot on Rogan, which should be at least 1-2 hours in length so she should have plenty of time to get into the nitty gritty. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9605 Posts
On October 18 2024 07:35 YumYumGranola wrote: Arguably the Supreme Court's immunity decision is a massive change in the power that the office of the Presidency holds. Yeah this is true so fair enough... I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are some people who position Trump as a kind of revolutionary, ready to step in and rid American politics of all of its corruption and everything gross that republicans pretend to hate. Here we are though, having lived through an entire Trump term during which he had something akin to carte blanche to change whatever and basically nothing happened that couldn't easily be reversed - except replacing a Supreme Court judge - and didn't rely on the Supreme Court making his choices for him. I have way more respect for simple arguments like 'Trump will get illegal immigration down' because at least they bear some resemblance to the reality of what we saw last time. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10421 Posts
The California Coastal Commission, whose mandate relates to environmental concerns and preserving California's coastline cited Elon Musk's politics when rejecting SpaceX's bid to increase the number of rockets it launches from 36 to 50. “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” Commissioner Gretchen Newsom said at the meeting in San Diego. Nothing to do with California's coastline and protected by the 1st amendment “We’re dealing with a company [whose leader] has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race, and made it clear what his point of view is,” Commissioner chair Carly Hart said. Also a first amendment protected activity that has nothing to do with California's coastline. I'm sure she's never whined about any Hollywood celebrities injecting themselves into politics. It's that "using the power of government to go after your political enemies" we keep hearing about. Just like Biden Administration's weekly meetings with social media companies to decide who needed to be banned for spreading misinformation, or Manhattan DA trumping up a misdemeanor from many years ago into 34 felony counts to prosecute a major party candidate in the run up to an election. But in fairness, California environmental agencies blocking SpaceX from doing groundbreaking work is also pretty on brand so it's hard to say if this was purely motivated by Musk's political speech or if it's just California doing California things. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5509 Posts
| ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom918 Posts
I'm pretty sure that rocket launches release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so opposing the launch of more rockets seems within their mandate... | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10421 Posts
On October 18 2024 17:20 MJG wrote: @BlackJack: I'm pretty sure that rocket launches release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so opposing the launch of more rockets seems within their mandate... Right. They could have rejected this for a number of legitimate reasons and we'd be none the wiser. By bringing his politics into it they've opened themselves up to a lawsuit. Your post reads "Not only are they biased, but they are also stupid." | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2639 Posts
On October 18 2024 17:32 BlackJack wrote: Right. They could have rejected this for a number of legitimate reasons and we'd be none the wiser. By bringing his politics into it they've opened themselves up to a lawsuit. Your post reads "Not only are they biased, but they are also stupid." Agree with BJ on this one. That's just plain daft. Edit: It reminds me of when Farage was denied an account based on his politics when they could have easily just cut him off because he didn't meet the thresholds. They're the real victims here, you know? | ||
| ||
