|
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 January 16 2025 01:58 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 01:30 Uldridge wrote:
Why is a conservative, conservative?
Is it a choice? Alright I guess you're not interested in discussion to begin with.
You're asking an inane question to begin with with a bad faith premise to begin with. I'm asking you to deeply reflect on why people adhere to a conservative ideology. You're not interested in pondering that because it might lead to some existential realisations akin to how people's sexuality is formed. My question is very serious and if you can't engage in what is the absolute basis, then how are we going to build up to your bad faith question?
|
On January 15 2025 16:51 Falling wrote:I'm amazed (but probably I shouldn't be) at just how many imperialists are amongst the MAGA fanbase considering how much I was assured they had moved on from Cheney and overseas adventurism.. and that it was no accident that Cheney now supported the Democrats. I'm amazed because I seeing this defence run up again and again: Of course in trade negotiations Trump refused to rule out military action : Show nested quote + He said i wouldn't rule anything out because why in holy F would you do that if you're trying to negotiate something? This is representative of the sort of attitude I'm seeing in the wider circles on the web. That and that Obama did this sort of thing as well. And it's either malicious lies or else the MAGA version of Trump Derangement Syndrome because absolutely not, this not how anyone negotiates free trade agreements with their allies. How free is the free market when trade is agreed upon under military coercion? Maybe you wouldn't rule out violence when negotiating with a hostile actor such as North Korea or Iran. Only if you are an empire are you making trade agreements with the implied threat of violence and your 'allies' are satellite states/ puppet regimes. No, this is not the typical way of negotiating. No, Obama did not do it too. Show me in all our softwood lumber disputes where that is the case. It's not used because it's stupid to treat your allies that way.
For that particular press conference, it is a case of ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
"Would you rule out using military or economic force in Panama or Greenland" "No" is not "Blumpf is going to invade Greenland." These questions appear from time to time. For example he was asked if he would invade Canada, he said no, he was asked if he would preemptively strike Iran, he said wtf are you doing asking a question about sensitive military strategy.
If the greater issue you're touching on - why your caricature of conservatism as the two words "free market" as a worldview disregarding literally anything else - is suddenly being abandoned - it's because it isn't, and has never been, what anyone believes.
As a tangent, since the 1800s there has been an international economic movement which does seek to subvert national interests, the status quo of politics, and existing institutions, in favor of an international working class. But that's communism. There is no analogous right wing movement to dissolve the power of national governments to realign people into a supranational economic revolution. There are a few theorists, Redditors, ideologues, and even crackpots, but they don't have a single successful party anywhere and have never overturned a country.
The belief that the free market supersedes the country is not MAGA, has never been MAGA, is not conservatism, and as far as I can tell has never been conservatism.
The people who want unrestricted trade and borderless exploitable labor are corporatists not right or left wingers as such, but a different group representing their own interests of leveraging the state for their own interests while advancing a facade of either left ring or right wing politics, such as the case may be.
One can coopt the idea of communist revolution to seize control while then having your faction become statist, dropping the vestiges of working class BS once you consolidate power. But there is no such equivalent avenue from radical right-wing economism. You will never get people mobilized, militarized, whatever, to take control and overthrow an existing system on the promise of global anarcho capitalism. There is no "radical free marketism" underpinning MAGA, nor the GOP. People believe in market capitalism - they do not believe in an unrestricted international market gauntlet, that only exists to be invoked as a "gotcha" in moments like this, when it's used to try to rebut perceived hypocrisy - the only problem being it never existed to begin with.
In laymen's terms, the thought process of "Yeah our steel industry disappeared and my whole community lost their jobs? Well shit nothing to do about that. The free market gods work in mysterious ways I guess. Better let my real wages drop and my industrial base disappear because the market gods will it," is not how basically anyone operates.
On January 15 2025 16:51 Falling wrote:
Nor is it a big brained negotiating tactic.
For it to be a negotiating tactic, the threat must be credible (therefore he wouldn't be trolling).
If it's not a credible threat, then it's an empty threat and useless for gaining a negotiating position.
(If you threaten to walk, but the salesman knows you have no intention of doing so aka they know the threat is hollow... you aren't getting a better deal.)
We are only a couple steps away from defending gunboat diplomacy as perfectly normal while at the same time claiming to reject neo-con military adventurism.
What ever happened to the party that would quote Adam Smith and tote around Atlas Shrugged? (Don't care for the book myself, but there it is.) MAGA seems to lack any coherent political identity beyond defending whatever the hell Trump happens to say or do next.
This is hard to to follow - His threats to invade Greenland, which he hasn't made, are hot air because he'd never actually do it, he'd never go through with it he's just a used car salesman etc. etc. - if that's the idea then I haven't been convinced to worry that he's going to invade Greenland.
By the way, this is Greenland we're talking about, most police forces in the US could invade it in a few days. Even in theory, that's wildly different than starting a ten year war with no objective other than to funnel trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to the military industrial complex in exchange for human life.
Adam Smith was a fine man, wrote a fine book. Not a founder of America, or American at all. Hasn't published anything for over 200 years.
The soundbites about Greenland also act as fodder for Democrats to get their moments in Hegseth's hearings. They have gotten to ask such bangers as "Would you use our military to take over Greenland or an ally of Denmark?"
The truth is America is an idea, and that idea can include Greenland. There's no reason it couldn't. Otherwise we need to get out and campaign to set Guam and Puerto Rico free immediately. Plus Hawaii and Alaska.
On January 15 2025 22:24 Luolis wrote:
Btw, what is the Hegseth pick if not DEI for an unqualified white man? Why arent conservatives in a rage about it?
I know! I remember vividly when Blumpf went on TV and said "I'm looking forward to making sure there's a White man in the Pentagon."
Blumpf said, "I commit that if I'm elected president and have an opportunity to appoint someone to the Pentagon, I'll appoint the first White Fox News Host to the Pentagon. It's overdue."
“I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a White man at the Defense Department, to make sure we in fact get every representation," he said to applause at the time.
Months later, he told reporters he was "putting together a list of a group of White National Guard majors who are qualified and have the experience to be in the Pentagon."
“I’ve made no decision except one: The person I will nominate will be somebody of extraordinary qualifications, character and integrity,” he said. “And that person will be the first White male National Guard major ever nominated to Secretary of Defense. It is long overdue."
I don't know how they let him get away with this racialism.
On January 15 2025 22:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2025 22:24 Luolis wrote:
Btw, what is the Hegseth pick if not DEI for an unqualified white man? Why arent conservatives in a rage about it? Double standard, sadly. What was Donald Trump back in 2016, if not DEI for an unqualified white (orange?) man? 
This also sprang to my mind as an example. As soon as he declared, the Republican Party was tripping on themselves to get him to be their nominee. Attempts were made to cancel the entire primary after the first debate so the voting delegates of the RNC could just unanimously anoint him. If anything, him being the GOP's nominee was their idea to begin with, that's why they actively went out looking to hire him to the position and never opposed him in any way, at all.
|
On January 16 2025 02:27 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 01:58 Magic Powers wrote:On January 16 2025 01:30 Uldridge wrote:
Why is a conservative, conservative?
Is it a choice? Alright I guess you're not interested in discussion to begin with. You're asking an inane question to begin with with a bad faith premise to begin with. I'm asking you to deeply reflect on why people adhere to a conservative ideology. You're not interested in pondering that because it might lead to some existential realisations akin to how people's sexuality is formed. My question is very serious and if you can't engage in what is the absolute basis, then how are we going to build up to your bad faith question?
The Republican party consists predominantly and disproportionately of white men. The fact that you're not aware of the conservative white male bias just tells me that you don't know how conservatives operate.
|
That's not my question though, is it.
I'm very aware of the makeup of the conservative party. Let me ask again: what makes a conservative, adhere to his specific ideology?
|
On January 16 2025 04:55 Uldridge wrote:
That's not my question though, is it.
I'm very aware of the makeup of the conservative party. Let me ask again: what makes a conservative, adhere to his specific ideology? Why do racist misogynist white males want to be represented by racist misogynist white males?
because they are racist misogynist white males.
Its not that conservatives want white men, conservatives want others like them, and racist misogynist white males tend to be conservatives.
|
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males.
|
On January 16 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males. The amount of reaching to get to where you are could grasp the moon.
lol
|
The Republican party is, by and large, racist and sexist in favor of white men. Arguments such as "not all" are irrelevant, as is "it's not explicitly stated in the conservative ideology to be racist", also irrelevant. What they do defines them. What they do is that they overwhelmingly favor white men at the expense of minority groups. Their bias doesn't have to be explicitly stated to be real and tangible. We can see it with our own eyes.
"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
|
United States43571 Posts
On January 16 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males.
Lol no. They’d vote for his rotting corpse to own the libs.
|
Do you think they're racist and sexist because they want to be racist and sexist and simply go like: that's the party for me, the racist, sexist party where they let you be racist and sexist!
The problem I'm having is that I agree with you, but in order to dissect what makes them the way they do, you need to understand their anatomy. You have done no such thing. It's like you're looking at a sick person and proclaiming: this is a sick person. What you need to do is find out what makes them sick, so that you can heal them, not point out they have a runny nose and are coughing incessantly.
You can find common ground without the need for calling them sexist and racist - which so far has only hurt Democrats and will continue to do so - and then you can calmly pull these people back to center. Meanwhile, Republicans only seem to be going full steam ahead while the Democrats are in an existential crisis, crying out that this is, in fact, the darkest timeline. Or maybe I'm just misreading the situation completely.
|
On January 16 2025 05:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males. Lol no. They’d vote for his rotting corpse to own the libs.
Ok... sure...
|
On January 16 2025 05:41 Uldridge wrote:
Do you think they're racist and sexist because they want to be racist and sexist and simply go like: that's the party for me, the racist, sexist party where they let you be racist and sexist!
The problem I'm having is that I agree with you, but in order to dissect what makes them the way they do, you need to understand their anatomy. You have done no such thing. It's like you're looking at a sick person and proclaiming: this is a sick person. What you need to do is find out what makes them sick, so that you can heal them, not point out they have a runny nose and are coughing incessantly.
You can find common ground without the need for calling them sexist and racist - which so far has only hurt Democrats and will continue to do so - and then you can calmly pull these people back to center. Meanwhile, Republicans only seem to be going full steam ahead while the Democrats are in an existential crisis, crying out that this is, in fact, the darkest timeline. Or maybe I'm just misreading the situation completely.
Curing the Republican party? Impossible.
Curing Americans? Possible. Vote Democrats, but more preferably vote Sanders and the like.
It's not the Republican party that's sick. It's Americans. They're sick of Republicans.
|
On January 16 2025 05:41 Uldridge wrote:
Do you think they're racist and sexist because they want to be racist and sexist and simply go like: that's the party for me, the racist, sexist party where they let you be racist and sexist!
The problem I'm having is that I agree with you, but in order to dissect what makes them the way they do, you need to understand their anatomy. You have done no such thing. It's like you're looking at a sick person and proclaiming: this is a sick person. What you need to do is find out what makes them sick, so that you can heal them, not point out they have a runny nose and are coughing incessantly.
You can find common ground without the need for calling them sexist and racist - which so far has only hurt Democrats and will continue to do so - and then you can calmly pull these people back to center. Meanwhile, Republicans only seem to be going full steam ahead while the Democrats are in an existential crisis, crying out that this is, in fact, the darkest timeline. Or maybe I'm just misreading the situation completely.
Capitalism/Technofeudalism is the sickness.
Democrats existential crisis is hopeless and perpetual because they are inextricably linked to the sickness itself. So Democrats fundamentally can't heal them.
|
On January 16 2025 05:41 Uldridge wrote:
Do you think they're racist and sexist because they want to be racist and sexist and simply go like: that's the party for me, the racist, sexist party where they let you be racist and sexist!
The problem I'm having is that I agree with you, but in order to dissect what makes them the way they do, you need to understand their anatomy. You have done no such thing. It's like you're looking at a sick person and proclaiming: this is a sick person. What you need to do is find out what makes them sick, so that you can heal them, not point out they have a runny nose and are coughing incessantly.
You can find common ground without the need for calling them sexist and racist - which so far has only hurt Democrats and will continue to do so - and then you can calmly pull these people back to center. Meanwhile, Republicans only seem to be going full steam ahead while the Democrats are in an existential crisis, crying out that this is, in fact, the darkest timeline. Or maybe I'm just misreading the situation completely. They grew up in conservative America and were never taught critical thinking in school. Nor did America ever actually resolve the civil war, still seeing the effects of that.
Add to that America itself just being fucked from top to bottom so people are stuck in hopeless situations with little to no way of getting themselves out of the hole they are in so they will latch on to anyone promising them unicorns because the people who offered them realistic solutions haven't delivered either, for a wide variety of reasons from opposition rat fuckery, to internal division.
That won't stop me from considering them idiots of the highest order for voting for a convicted felon found liable for sexual assault that already spend 4 years fucking them over and literally killing them.
|
On January 16 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males.
I was not aware JD Vance is an Indian woman. If you meant Haley, Trump beat her 2268-97 on delegates. I’m not so sure the republican base would come out for her, they didn’t during the primaries. Nor did they for any other candidate whose rhetoric was less inflammatory towards minorities than Trump. Was there any candidate more inflammatory?
|
On January 16 2025 07:06 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males. I was not aware JD Vance is an Indian woman. If you meant Haley, Trump beat her 2268-97 on delegates. I’m not so sure the republican base would come out for her, they didn’t during the primaries. Nor did they for any other candidate whose rhetoric was less inflammatory towards minorities than Trump. Was there any candidate more inflammatory?
Were Republicans not insulting her as a Democrat?
|
On January 16 2025 07:06 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males. I was not aware JD Vance is an Indian woman. If you meant Haley, Trump beat her 2268-97 on delegates. I’m not so sure the republican base would come out for her, they didn’t during the primaries. Nor did they for any other candidate whose rhetoric was less inflammatory towards minorities than Trump. Was there any candidate more inflammatory?
JD Vance wouldn't be relevant in that hypothetically because running mates aren't generally chosen by dead people
|
On January 16 2025 06:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 05:41 Uldridge wrote:
Do you think they're racist and sexist because they want to be racist and sexist and simply go like: that's the party for me, the racist, sexist party where they let you be racist and sexist!
The problem I'm having is that I agree with you, but in order to dissect what makes them the way they do, you need to understand their anatomy. You have done no such thing. It's like you're looking at a sick person and proclaiming: this is a sick person. What you need to do is find out what makes them sick, so that you can heal them, not point out they have a runny nose and are coughing incessantly.
You can find common ground without the need for calling them sexist and racist - which so far has only hurt Democrats and will continue to do so - and then you can calmly pull these people back to center. Meanwhile, Republicans only seem to be going full steam ahead while the Democrats are in an existential crisis, crying out that this is, in fact, the darkest timeline. Or maybe I'm just misreading the situation completely. They grew up in conservative America and were never taught critical thinking in school. Nor did America ever actually resolve the civil war, still seeing the effects of that. Add to that America itself just being fucked from top to bottom so people are stuck in hopeless situations with little to no way of getting themselves out of the hole they are in so they will latch on to anyone promising them unicorns because the people who offered them realistic solutions haven't delivered either, for a wide variety of reasons from opposition rat fuckery, to internal division. That won't stop me from considering them idiots of the highest order for voting for a convicted felon found liable for sexual assault that already spend 4 years fucking them over and literally killing them.
I think this is pretty much right, and entirely fair, the only thing I'd ask is do you see these people as irredeemable?
|
On January 16 2025 07:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 07:06 RenSC2 wrote:On January 16 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males. I was not aware JD Vance is an Indian woman. If you meant Haley, Trump beat her 2268-97 on delegates. I’m not so sure the republican base would come out for her, they didn’t during the primaries. Nor did they for any other candidate whose rhetoric was less inflammatory towards minorities than Trump. Was there any candidate more inflammatory? JD Vance wouldn't be relevant in that hypothetically because running mates aren't generally chosen by dead people
Vance was announced 2 days after the assassination attempt, so admittedly I was slightly off on the timeline as I assumed he was already announced by then.
Still, the Trump team likely already knew Trump’s VP choice at that point and would likely push Vance (or Don Jr). I’d suspect there’d be quite an internal battle amongst republicans. I’m not so sure that Haley would win it. Even if she did, I’m also not so sure that republicans would come out to vote for her in large enough numbers to beat Harris, especially after a late contentious internal battle.
There’s no reason to assume a majority of republicans would actually support an Indian woman.
|
On January 16 2025 08:39 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2025 07:52 BlackJack wrote:On January 16 2025 07:06 RenSC2 wrote:On January 16 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Trump's shooter was 2 inches to the right we'd be 1 week away from inaugurating an Indian woman as Republican President. A natural representative for racist misogynist white males. I was not aware JD Vance is an Indian woman. If you meant Haley, Trump beat her 2268-97 on delegates. I’m not so sure the republican base would come out for her, they didn’t during the primaries. Nor did they for any other candidate whose rhetoric was less inflammatory towards minorities than Trump. Was there any candidate more inflammatory? JD Vance wouldn't be relevant in that hypothetically because running mates aren't generally chosen by dead people Vance was announced 2 days after the assassination attempt, so admittedly I was slightly off on the timeline as I assumed he was already announced by then. Still, the Trump team likely already knew Trump’s VP choice at that point and would likely push Vance (or Don Jr). I’d suspect there’d be quite an internal battle amongst republicans. I’m not so sure that Haley would win it. Even if she did, I’m also not so sure that republicans would come out to vote for her in large enough numbers to beat Harris, especially after a late contentious internal battle. There’s no reason to assume a majority of republicans would actually support an Indian woman.
Yet amazingly she's a twice elected governor of South Carolina defeating scores of white men in the primary process. Imagine that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
