| 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 | ||
|
TentativePanda
United States799 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:20 Mikau313 wrote: And you're responding to a comment that wasn't aimed at you or your comment, but the one above it. Then use the quote function because it makes perfect sense for you to reply with this to me, who also supports not voting for Kamala Harris and in the same page lol | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22211 Posts
On November 05 2024 23:10 WombaT wrote: + Show Spoiler + I’d be interested to see counter-examples where this tactic worked. I can imagine they exist, but only in more pluralist democracies where the genuine left have some political party they can call home. We both have the misfortune to dwell in borderline 2 party states, and in such confines it seems to just not work. It actually somewhat preceded him but hey he won so let’s take Blair winning in 97, and dropping things like a codified link between unions and the party. Taking the labour out of Labour if you will. We’re not far off 30 years of Labour not really being a left wing party. The one time they did have a left wing leader in this time the centre did their utmost to defang him. Of course, when we’ve got a nice wee centrist back in leadership it’s back to ‘you have to vote for us because the Tories are Satan and if you don’t you’re a bad person’ It’s remarkable how the Tories cease being Satan and you should vote for Labour to keep them out if there’s a lefty in charge eh? Colloquially referred to as the "ratchet effect"+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/d09q0x9ekww11.jpg) It goes back to the issue that libs/Dems don't have a line. For all their rhetoric about Trump, they'd vote for him in a heartbeat to defend lesser evil absolutism. | ||
|
TentativePanda
United States799 Posts
On November 06 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote: I assume your aware that multiple intelligence agencies, both in the US and abroad as well as the (at the time) Republican senate intelligence oversight committee all agree that 'Russian hoax 1.0' actually really did happen and that your just being purposefully dense. I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of a intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43318 Posts
On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Yikes. But thanks for bragging about throwing away your swing vote in an election that truly does have consequences. Low information voter 2.0  On November 06 2024 01:35 TentativePanda wrote: I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of a intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd Mueller literally found 10 counts of obstruction of justice... and Russian interference was, indeed, confirmed >.> | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22573 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:35 TentativePanda wrote: I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of an intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd Was the conclusion of the Muelller report not that agents acted on his behalf, but not on his behest? The burden of proof being rather larger on the latter Nonetheless, I have concerns in this domain but I’ve always found it a bit silly. 1) If a third rate power like Russia can sabotage your elections, what the fuck are you doing to be less palatable? 2) If you’re saying Russia did do this, what platforms did they do it on? Oh US based and hosted ones? Are you going to propose meaningful regulatory frameworks at a legislative level? No? Well stop fucking whinging then It’s a put up or shut up scenario for me. Something can’t simultaneously be a threat to the very fabric of US democracy and be something you’re unwilling to do anything about unless you’re either grossly incompetent, or in some way benefit from making the claim | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5881 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yikes. But thanks for bragging about throwing away your swing vote in an election that truly does have consequences. Not just bragging about throwing their vote away, but doing so knowing that the most recent "change" Stein voters enacted was helping Trump get elected. Not worth the breath for me. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13625 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:21 WombaT wrote: If your theory is I have certain red lines and I won’t vote for you if you cross them, that’s a different kettle of fish. GH has expressed no desire to get Trump elected or punish Democrats You could throw the most desperate singleton going, perhaps approaching incel land two particularly unappealing partnership prospects and they’re not obligated to go for either. They can just say nah I’m ok being single for now Ultimately the 20-40% of non politically engaged folks who couldn’t be arsed voting are a considerably bigger concern than a GH type Just because you don't have a desire for an outcome doesn't change the responsibility for the outcome your actions cause. Gh has constantly shamed democrats and people who support harris for voting for her. In a binary choice persuading people not to vote for one is material support for the opposite. The outcome of the election is going to come if you chose an option or not. Not voting doesn't change someone winning the vote. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your decision by declaring yourself morally better than the two choices before you. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15272 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States15939 Posts
On November 06 2024 00:41 Billyboy wrote: It is crazy how it is allowed to make it more difficult to vote (like less stations) in certain parts than others, even in the same state. And how the person who picks where it all goes is partisan. It should be the same for all people in the US, you guys need some impartial federal group that runs these elections. Voting is done by the states and if there were a motion for a federal oversight comittee to monitor elections half of the states (I'll let you guess which ones) would vote against it. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13625 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:14 TentativePanda wrote: You're conflating a lot here, and seriously oversimplifying. Flat earth is scientifically, and physically disprovable. Theory of change is a political/philosophical theory that is not. I think both are reasonable, and you don't, that's fine. And no, this isn't just about taking the moral highground (though voting due to moral convictions is well... certainly valid in a very obvious way) I don't think the theory of flat earth is reasonable, and yet there are people who believe it, you need to be aware of these people and how to persuade them otherwise. Voteing due to moral convictions is not what you are doing by voting for Jill stein. There is nothing that will happen voting for Jill stein for any of your moral convictions logically or morally. | ||
|
Timebon3s
Norway560 Posts
Fivethirtyeight went in favor of Harris today as well after being pro-trump for a long time. Wish you all the best America! Good luck! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22211 Posts
On November 06 2024 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: Someone going out of their way to make sure people know they voted for stein tells you all you need to know. We have plenty of other interesting things to discuss. No reason to respond to them. If anything we should all be thankful they didn't vote for Trump (assuming they are either a PA voter or they voted for Stein). For context (emphasis mine): On July 15 2024 07:37 TentativePanda wrote: Having to ask this question just proves you've never let an ounce of you question if Trump isn't Super Evil incarnate like they say he is. He isn't allowed a shred of grace or mercy in the resistance cult. Honest people know he genuinely loves the US, and maybe just has different opinions on how to Make It Great Again. Is that not allowed? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13625 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:10 WombaT wrote: You live in that world every day. Firing your tick on a ballot box every 4/5 years doesn’t necessarily move the needle. Indeed I think it’s a big part of the problem. For borderline half my life I’ve been dutifully doing that, it hasn’t yet actualised in many directions I find desirable. Hey most of my material conditions are actively worse than when I first hit the ballot box. But I think for many, ticking that box is like a bare minimum, and once that’s done hey, I’ve done my part! So as a general critique of electoralism I think GH is pretty on the money. However, one also has to consider harm reduction, especially with various politically persecuted groups so, personally I would go more with the lesser evil option. For me the main problem with electoralism is that that’s that. It’s both the minimum and the limits of my civic responsibility. And if it’s widely believed, that’s the box many remain within. Well I voted, all I can realistically do is vote so hey ‘The person is the political’ as they say. Go argue on internet forums, you might change 1 person’s mind, hell they might change another person’s mind, and the cycle may continue. Get involved in a union or some community group. Add in a if in a few places. If electoralism is it for you then it is a bad system to live by. If you believe the only effect you have on the world is your vote that's a bad way to live. The people you elect, and the people down ballot moreso, have an effect on how you can engage civically at your local level. If harris passes the pro act and appoints labor friendly people that makes forming a union easier. If trump appoints more anti choice and anti LGBTQ judges to the Supreme Court that makes it harder to find legal support for the disadvantaged. You can't disentangle elections from your daily life. Voteing has real effects and real outcomes for the country. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10533 Posts
Wasn't a hoax at all. Nevermind, saw your other replies. Isn't worth it. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21129 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:35 TentativePanda wrote: I still have the report in my document folder from 2019.I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of a intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd Page 1, paragraph 2 The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22573 Posts
On November 06 2024 02:02 Sermokala wrote: Just because you don't have a desire for an outcome doesn't change the responsibility for the outcome your actions cause. Gh has constantly shamed democrats and people who support harris for voting for her. In a binary choice persuading people not to vote for one is material support for the opposite. The outcome of the election is going to come if you chose an option or not. Not voting doesn't change someone winning the vote. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your decision by declaring yourself morally better than the two choices before you. I don’t think it’s all that big of a deal. Perhaps the left could learn something from Republicans. The Tea Party didn’t just appear from electoralism, it came from groundwork. And whatever the fuck we have now is just an evolution of that. Roe vs Wade being actually repealed was pretty unfathomable 15 years back. Did your preferred candidate actually have a chance in a general? Elect them anyway in the primary. Sure it took a while but they got there in the end. The Dems continually compromise for ‘electability’ and when it doesn’t work out they blame GH for it. Hey I find them an absolute bunch of bollocking ball bags but look at what the right’s actually achieved in the last 10-15 years. It’s fucking night and day. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21129 Posts
On November 06 2024 02:17 WombaT wrote: The difference probably is that the far right actually had enough people to force the Republican party to follow them. There are not enough progressives to do the same to the Democrats. to take over the party like the Tea Party did actually requires you to win primaries. If Progressives can't do that then they either need to work harder to turning more people into progressives or accept that they are a small minority not worth catering to.I don’t think it’s all that big of a deal. Perhaps the left could learn something from Republicans. The Tea Party didn’t just appear from electoralism, it came from groundwork. And whatever the fuck we have now is just an evolution of that. Roe vs Wade being actually repealed was pretty unfathomable 15 years back. Did your preferred candidate actually have a chance in a general? Elect them anyway in the primary. Sure it took a while but they got there in the end. The Dems continually compromise for ‘electability’ and when it doesn’t work out they blame GH for it. Hey I find them an absolute bunch of bollocking ball bags but look at what the right’s actually achieved in the last 10-15 years. It’s fucking night and day. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10533 Posts
| ||
|
TentativePanda
United States799 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yikes. But thanks for bragging about throwing away your swing vote in an election that truly does have consequences. Low information voter 2.0 Mueller literally found 10 counts of obstruction of justice... and Russian interference was, indeed, confirmed >.> I'm not bragging about it, lots of people say how they voted. And Stein voters generally feel alienated by mobs of antagonistic jerks on the internet like you. So a little ray of sun for those people. Sorry my very reasonable take scared you - yikes. Russian interference wasn't the hoax. The hoax is that Trump colluded with them - which they did not find. If Russia intervened, we need more security. But honestly, I think their strategy was simply to intervene without worrying about who it helped. The act of doing it is what causes discord in the US and causes people like you to berate others on the internet and in doing so contribute to the Russia asset witch hunt | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6151 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Code For Giants Cup
Wardi Open
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
SOOP
GuMiho vs Zoun
SC Evo Complete
PassionCraft
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
