|
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 October 20 2024 18:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2024 18:12 Acrofales wrote:On October 20 2024 15:54 BlackJack wrote:
You can conclude whatever you want about what Trump says. If you think Trump will call in a drone strike on your neighbor for having a Harris-Walz campaign sign on their lawn then go for it. What you don't get to do is draw your own conclusion and then declare that's what he said. Turning the military on U.S. citizens "simply for opposing his candidacy" is plainly not what he said. You don't need a Trump interpreter™ to realize that. Is it fair to conclude that Trump would like to use the military against the "radical left"? That seems pretty literally what he said. I guess I’ll restate once more. It’s fair to conclude whatever you want. For example I’ve concluded Trump would write himself a check for $1 trillion from the US treasury if he could get away with it. Some have concluded Trump wants to fuck his own daughter. Great. We can argue over the merits of those things but that’s not the point I’m making. What’s not fair is altering someone’s quote to say something they didn’t say. Trump said he would use the military against the “enemy within” (radical left) in response to a question about agitators causing chaos on Election Day. It’s obviously different from turning the military on U.S. citizens “simply for opposing his campaign.” @Ender you speak perfect English so you can keep pretending this is the same but I’m certain you know better. This is actually very important as we move toward a world of deep fakes. There needs to be some arbiter of truth to tell us what actually happened. If the NYTimes can’t report a simple quote without exaggerating and changing its meaning then we are fucked. But nobody cares about the repercussions of losing faith in the media as long as they stick it to Trump. It’s short-sighted.
But Trump has labelled many people the radical left. People on the actual "radical" left, ironically are not among them. Right now Trump's ire isn't aimed at actual communist revolutionaries, but at run-of-the-mill citizens in positions of medium power who refuse to go along with his cockamamie stories about election fraud, journalists who fact check his answers, and various politicians, including former allies, who oppose him. These are not "radical left" people. They might not be someone who has a Harris for president sign on their lawn, but it's not too far off.
|
Anyone attacking the White House or burning down US cities and rioting should at least expect to be met by the National Guard if they overwhelm local law enforcement. Rioting for radical left reasons isn't a pass in civilized society. It was a mistake to ignore it in 2020 for being an election year. The military in the interior is a little tougher question due to posse comitatus.
On October 20 2024 08:21 frontgarden2222 wrote:
It passes the smell test in so much his rallies are straight incoherent and at times incredibly low energy compared to 2016. He also handled adversarial interviews far better in the past, handling those well are his bread and butter and at no point has he handled those well this cycle. His absolute worst interviews are hugbox ones like the Elon Musk interview where its just freaking boring and he's doing more and more of those. Of course they're going to do what Biden's (and Harris' team initially) did, he hasn't got the juice anymore.
Adversarial is one thing - there's no reason to indulge brazenly dishonest agenda driven liars when it comes to the media.
On October 20 2024 08:21 frontgarden2222 wrote:
Unlike 2016 where the message was pretty coherent and centered around coherent grievances about the economy and immigration, you've got this guy spending most of the time talking about random garbage, listening to music when he's out of stuff to talk about, or spending more and more of his time putting out terminally online garbage like trans people in prisons or immigrants eating pets. If we suddenly care this much about the existence of trans people who make like up 0.01% of the population and believe immigrants will murder our cats and dogs for food, then god save us because there's no future worth living in.
There have been literal murderers who transition in custody. Like 25% of students identify as LGBTQ. There is no bigger deal than our children. Huge percent of trans athletes immediately get world records. It's not that these are the biggest issues. It's more like, if a party's entire ideology is so anti-orange that they can't get these obvious things correct simply due to the power of spite, nobody should bother trusting their judgment on anything else.
On October 20 2024 08:21 frontgarden2222 wrote:
The fact the election is so close despite several years of inflation hitting the lower/middle class and deteriorating situations overseas is proof that Trump isn't really running a good campaign. Harris should be well underwater at this point, being tied to one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history. But apparently Harris has a 50% shot to win the presidency. You run a replacement level candidate on the Republican side, running a conventional Republican campaign, and we're looking at a Reagan level landslide if worldwide swings against incumbent parties are any indication.
What is a conventional Republican campaign, what does it have that Drumpf doesn't, and how would that be good for the country that you would vote for it?
On October 20 2024 08:21 frontgarden2222 wrote:
No, 1000% tarrifs is not a real policy without the additional steps of building rail infrastructure to support domestic industry and supply chains. Neither is deporting every migrant that can't pretend to hail from the Anglosphere, how are the logistics of that going to even work even if we assume the involvement of sham courts (or none at all)? I don't even know what the Democrats are really proposing beyond small target policies that intentionally don't influence much at all.
Other countries, and non-Democrats, and also, Democrats from at least 10 years ago, have no problem securing borders and deporting people who don't belong. Even if you can't personally fathom a moon rocket, that doesn't mean it's impossible. Drumpf is famously pro infrastructure. The Democrats are famously pro spending on infrastructure. Look at California's high speed rail or the $42 billion in high speed internet that has worse results than an AOL Online CD. The entire campaign is deregulate to make it possible for the country to build again. Like if you bother to listen to two minutes of Drumpf or Musk's "nonsense" you would have heard that.
The reason they have no policies is they have no coherent beliefs besides "Drumpf is bad, let our lobbyists in to keep siphoning taxes and you and your children's future." This is also the reason Drumpf is not convincing more people who think he's Hitler to vote for him. The Democrats have made their bed on this. And they would have targeted the same propaganda beam at any other perceived threat who had ascended from the Republican party instead of Drumpf. The strength of that beam is what keeps the political divide a close race and the Democrats are completely all-in on it.
On October 20 2024 08:21 frontgarden2222 wrote:
The irony of this is that Trump could have been one of the greatest presidents for domestic industry after winning 2016 by emulating Chinese policies - they haven't been the cheapest manufacturer for a long time now but are still by far the most reliable because of how much has been invested into their domestic supply chains. He basically had a carte blanche to actually do something, Republicans aren't going to do shit because he is the party at this point. But instead he's just more interested in the easy graft like the Foxconn factory in Wisconsin.
What carte blanche did he have? Was he supposed to be a dictator or...? Maybe just commit the crime since people blame it on you anyway.
|
Considering Trump also recently talked about how Police should be allowed to just kill people for a day, this seems more like a pattern...
|
I'm trying to be as good faith as I can be, but I can't find a way to interpret Trump's words to mean anything other than violent suppression of political opponents.
|
Just imagine if a parent said this at home after a family dinner. But instead of "military" they say "stick" and instead of "radical leftists" they say "difficult kids".
"I think the bigger issue is with the kids here at home, we have some bad kids, we have some difficult troublemakers, and we can solve this with muscle, or with the stick if necessary."
I'd call that an abusive household without the slightest hesitation. Not even a second thought.
And with Trump's consistent history of similar remarks in the past, his history of ending women's rights, his history of lying endlessly, his history of antagonization, an attempted coup, etc.
There is no misinterpreting this. This is the same exact language many abusive parents use at home. He's just prepping the next part of his fascist character arc.
|
On October 20 2024 19:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2024 18:59 BlackJack wrote:On October 20 2024 18:12 Acrofales wrote:On October 20 2024 15:54 BlackJack wrote:
You can conclude whatever you want about what Trump says. If you think Trump will call in a drone strike on your neighbor for having a Harris-Walz campaign sign on their lawn then go for it. What you don't get to do is draw your own conclusion and then declare that's what he said. Turning the military on U.S. citizens "simply for opposing his candidacy" is plainly not what he said. You don't need a Trump interpreter™ to realize that. Is it fair to conclude that Trump would like to use the military against the "radical left"? That seems pretty literally what he said. I guess I’ll restate once more. It’s fair to conclude whatever you want. For example I’ve concluded Trump would write himself a check for $1 trillion from the US treasury if he could get away with it. Some have concluded Trump wants to fuck his own daughter. Great. We can argue over the merits of those things but that’s not the point I’m making. What’s not fair is altering someone’s quote to say something they didn’t say. Trump said he would use the military against the “enemy within” (radical left) in response to a question about agitators causing chaos on Election Day. It’s obviously different from turning the military on U.S. citizens “simply for opposing his campaign.” @Ender you speak perfect English so you can keep pretending this is the same but I’m certain you know better. This is actually very important as we move toward a world of deep fakes. There needs to be some arbiter of truth to tell us what actually happened. If the NYTimes can’t report a simple quote without exaggerating and changing its meaning then we are fucked. But nobody cares about the repercussions of losing faith in the media as long as they stick it to Trump. It’s short-sighted. But Trump has labelled many people the radical left. People on the actual "radical" left, ironically are not among them. Right now Trump's ire isn't aimed at actual communist revolutionaries, but at run-of-the-mill citizens in positions of medium power who refuse to go along with his cockamamie stories about election fraud, journalists who fact check his answers, and various politicians, including former allies, who oppose him. These are not "radical left" people. They might not be someone who has a Harris for president sign on their lawn, but it's not too far off.
To illustrate your post, Walz is friends with Canada's second most conservative premier, and he is part of the "radical left". It is pretty obvious that his term means anyone against him rather than people with a certain political leaning.
|
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point.
|
On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point.
You are really, really good at missing the points of arguments and spinning everything beyond sanity.
|
On October 20 2024 19:56 oBlade wrote:
Huge percent of trans athletes immediately get world records.
1. What percent of trans athletes immediately get world records?
2. Please cite your source.
|
On October 20 2024 22:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. You are really, really good at missing the points of arguments and spinning everything beyond sanity.
Not to mention the cognitive dissonance it takes for a Trump supporter who apparently condones child abuse to say:
On October 20 2024 19:56 oBlade wrote:
There is no bigger deal than our children.
The absolute fucking nerve.
|
On October 20 2024 22:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. You are really, really good at missing the points of arguments and spinning everything beyond sanity.
Thanks, I don't know if I'd go that far but it's something all of us child abuse condoners have worked to excel at.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
On October 20 2024 08:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 21:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
The guy is a fascist. I agree. It's deeply unsettling that Trump would use the military to silence his dissenters ( https://youtube.com/shorts/uzcPF9AOCUw?si=hjtNH_J-fxcdhpOJ ). I worry that too many people don't really think he's serious, or that that's not really a big deal, though. Do you happen to know of any strategies to effectively communicate Trump's fascism to people? Is posting Trump's own words, Vance's own words ("America's Hitler"), and the words of Trump's generals and ex-allies the best we can do? The most effective way to do it would be to do it honestly. But even Trump's worst takes can't be approached by the mainstream media without the foaming at the mouth hyperventilating of someone suffering from full-blown TDS. Trump's comments about using the national guard/military were in response to what should happen if outside agitators attempt to cause "chaos" on election day in the event than he wins The New York Times' interpretation: Show nested quote +Trump openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy. A snap of the fingers and an abracadabra and we go from "agitators causing chaos" to "citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy." Amazing. Vanity Fair's headlineShow nested quote +Trump Wants the Military Used Against Americans Who Don’t Support Him on Election Day The Guardian's headlineShow nested quote +Trump sparks outrage after calling for army to handle enemies on election day
Democrats condemn ex-president for saying armed forces should turn against ‘enemy within’ when voters go to polls PBS's headlineShow nested quote +Trump suggests he’ll use the military on ‘the enemy from within’ the U.S. if he’s re-elected So Trump's response to what we should do if agitators sow chaos and out of control rioting on election day morphs into "Trump plans to use the military against anyone that doesn't support him." Not to mention that the inauguration doesn't happen until January so Biden will be commander-in-chief on election day. That makes it all the more nonsensical to suggest that Trump wants to use the military on citizens when they go to the polls. At best you can suggest that Trump wants Biden to use the military on election day... which I guess makes sense to some of these journalists. To be clear, Trump's comments were still dumb as hell even in the correct context. I'm not defending them. Instead I'm once again pointing out the counterproductive efforts by the mainstream media that no matter how much ammunition Trump gives them to attack him on they have to distort it to make it sound even worse which hurts their own credibility and opens the window to doubt on other things they say about him. A big reason why trust in the media is at an all-time low. Of course I have no doubt that this thread will ignore this nuanced argument and rant about me "defending Trump" or telling me why Trump deserves to be taken out of context or whatever.
The trust in media is at an all-time low because people don’t want to be told their intuitions are wrong. Across various strata of the political spectrum
And an inability to differentiate imperfect from worthless.
And alternatives that will kowtow entirely to those sensibilities. It’s not a great mix
|
On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point.
Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy.
|
On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy.
He literally used those exact words to describe Kamala Harris as well lol.
|
On October 21 2024 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. He literally used those exact words to describe Kamala Harris as well lol.
Agreed.
1. Trump would use the military to silence whoever he believes to be part of the radical left.
2. Trump believes Harris to be part of the radical left.
3. Therefore, Trump would use the military to silence Harris.
He's labeled plenty of other people as being part of the radical left too.
|
On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy.
Trump didn’t use the words “simply for opposing my campaign” either but evidently it’s okay for the NYTimes to invent entire predicates but you object to oBlade adding a single adjective. Amazing.
|
On October 21 2024 00:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. He literally used those exact words to describe Kamala Harris as well lol. Agreed. 1. Trump would use the military to silence whoever he believes to be part of the radical left. 2. Trump believes Harris to be part of the radical left. 3. Therefore, Trump would use the military to silence Harris. He's labeled plenty of other people as being part of the radical left too.
4. Therefore the mainstream media can publish headlines “Trump promises to use the military on Kamala Harris”
|
On October 21 2024 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. He literally used those exact words to describe Kamala Harris as well lol.
Wow you're right, I just looked it up to be sure. So, if we take him by his words, he would use military force against Kamala Harris if he has the power to do so.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx20np62x88o
Also interesting (and weirdly funny) fact checks on her being a "radical left lunatic".
https://ne1.www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-kamala-harris-really-205923101.html
|
On October 21 2024 00:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. Trump didn’t use the words “simply for opposing my campaign” either but evidently it’s okay for the NYTimes to invent entire predicates but you object to oBlade adding a single adjective. Amazing.
I don't care what the New York Times says. I care what Trump says. What he says is abhorrent and should disqualify him from presidency. No need to spin his words to come to that conclusion.
|
On October 21 2024 01:12 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 00:51 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. Trump didn’t use the words “simply for opposing my campaign” either but evidently it’s okay for the NYTimes to invent entire predicates but you object to oBlade adding a single adjective. Amazing. I don't care what the New York Times says. I care what Trump says. What he says is abhorrent and should disqualify him from presidency. No need to spin his words to come to that conclusion.
Here's what he said:
Q: There was an Afghan Refugee charged with plotting US Election Day Massacre.
A: Nothing surprises me.
Q: What about that though? Are you expecting chaos on Election Day?
A: No I don't think, not from the side that votes for Trump.
Q: But I'm just wondering if these outside agitators will start up on Election Day. Let's say you win, I mean let's not, let's, let's remember you've got 50,000 Chinese nationals in this country in the last couple of years. You've got people on the terrorist watch list, 350 in the last couple of years, you got, like you said 13,000 murderers and 15,000 rapists. What are you expecting? Joe Biden said he doesn't think it's going to be a peaceful election day.
A: Well, he doesn't have any idea what's happening, in all fairness, as he spends most of his day sleeping. I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. Not even the people that have come in and destroying our country. By the way, totally destroying our country, the towns, the villages, they're being inundated. But I don't think they the problem in terms of election day. I think the bigger problem are the people from within - we have some very bad people, we have some sick people - radical left lunatics, and I think they're the big- and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary by the military. Because they can't let that happen.
+ Show Spoiler +
Starts around 8:30.
Source for the election day terror plot if that has missed your bubble/algorithms: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/afghan-national-arrested-plotting-election-day-terrorist-attack-name-isis
In that context, summarized Q: Will there be election day violence? A: Not from my side, the bigger problem is the left, the other side (this is what every side in politics always says and therefore should be normal so far), also Biden is a retard who can't handle it (this is also what every side says) but if necessary the National Guard should handle it, i.e. ensure a peaceful election day.
Note the two uses of "if necessary," when talking about handling a non peaceful (the opposite of peace being violence) election day during the administration of his running mate, whose superior is the commander in chief of the military at the moment and presumably still on election day.
The people who spun his words: MSNBC, CNN. These are also the people responsible for me doing the homework that nobody else bothers to do, and for that reason, despite the fact that Drumpf didn't suggest it, I now feel more inclined to propose a ballot measure of using the National Guard on them if necessary. This is preposterous.
Why does Joe Biden not think it's going to be a peaceful election day, by the way? Any chance he is planning something as commander in chief?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
