EPTObama deeply, genuinely offended conservatives. The resentment is so extreme they can’t ever hope to escape it. It’s so core to everything they think and feel they don’t remember how they felt before this big mess. It feels similar to how addicts can’t really imagine themselves in their pre-addiction stage in life.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4762
| 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 | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15584 Posts
Obama deeply, genuinely offended conservatives. The resentment is so extreme they can’t ever hope to escape it. It’s so core to everything they think and feel they don’t remember how they felt before this big mess. It feels similar to how addicts can’t really imagine themselves in their pre-addiction stage in life. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21613 Posts
On February 13 2025 06:35 Mohdoo wrote: if you don't think its (just) racism what about Obama was so deeply offensive?I think the dynamic is so significant and complex it isn’t well served by just labeling it as racism. I do think that played a role. At least for some people, whether they knew it or not. But what I do feel comfortable saying with certainty is: Obama deeply, genuinely offended conservatives. The resentment is so extreme they can’t ever hope to escape it. It’s so core to everything they think and feel they don’t remember how they felt before this big mess. It feels similar to how addicts can’t really imagine themselves in their pre-addiction stage in life. Because from the outside it certainly does look like Conservative America lost its shit because a black man became President. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11458 Posts
On February 13 2025 06:38 Gorsameth wrote: if you don't think its (just) racism what about Obama was so deeply offensive? Because from the outside it certainly does look like Conservative America lost its shit because a black man became President. Agreed. It is hard to come up with anything else that would lead to this extreme reaction. He didn't really do anything that out of the ordinary for a US president. He was competent at his job, mostly charismatic, and did a bunch of normal president stuff. Some of it people might agree with, other stuff people might dislike. But really nothing that outside the norm. What, if not his skin colour, was so deeply offensive to conservatives about Obama? I am really drawing a blank here. And yes, i know we have this thing where we are not supposed to call the racists racists because that makes them get angry and turn fascist, but that ship seems to have sailed anyways. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24934 Posts
On February 13 2025 07:08 Simberto wrote: Agreed. It is hard to come up with anything else that would lead to this extreme reaction. He didn't really do anything that out of the ordinary for a US president. He was competent at his job, mostly charismatic, and did a bunch of normal president stuff. Some of it people might agree with, other stuff people might dislike. But really nothing that outside the norm. What, if not his skin colour, was so deeply offensive to conservatives about Obama? I am really drawing a blank here. And yes, i know we have this thing where we are not supposed to call the racists racists because that makes them get angry and turn fascist, but that ship seems to have sailed anyways. It could have been his fake birth certificate or him instituting Death PanelsTM? In a crude sense I imagine there’s a category of racists/sexists who can have friends, or partners and generally not have awful attitudes towards them. But if they have a black boss, or a woman? They may resent that and not even necessarily know why. I think you see an element of that in favourability towards political leaders as well. Clinton and Harris fucked up in other domains, I’ll be the first to say that too, but it’s hard to escape the feeling that them being women alone also had an impact. I will concede I was wrong here, I had initially thought that Obama was breaking the glass ceiling. I had also thought you’d see a response in the other direction. However, to use a boxing analogy, I thought it would be the desperate last haymaker of a gassed out fighter. The death rattle of the angry white racists if you will. It might land, but I thought it would be a temporary rollback. You’d get the reaction that might flip that progress for an election, and it would largely then revert to the previous direction of travel (largely). 2 steps forward, 1 step back if you will. Instead, we’ve got a rollback that’s more persistent, and I’d argue has made things [i]worse[/] in certain respects than before Obama broke that barrier. And because some folks require the caveat, I’m not saying everyone has become a giant racist overnight. Trump made not negligible gains among various non-white demographics this time versus 2016 after all. A personal observation action is I think good old-fashioned racists, the ‘culture war’ and ‘wokeness’ is an absolute, absolute godsend. They can package their bigotry up and present it as merely a resistance to the excesses of wokeness. And thus ally up with those who perhaps genuinely don’t have those prejudices, and just have that issue with woke excess. In a similar way to Fash-leaning types throwing themselves behind freedom of speech causes. They want that freedom of speech so they can gain power, and then cut it to those they don’t think they should have it, but Libertarians in many instances for some reason can’t recognise this and go ‘hey we’re both for freedom of speech’ It’s why there’s been such a relentless focus on that in this cycle IMO. It does resonate more broadly, and for many it’s not coming from a place of bigotry, but it’s a super useful vehicle for bigots. Whatever it is, it’s super fucking depressing anyway | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8971 Posts
On February 13 2025 03:43 WombaT wrote: I think racism is a component of it, but it’s part of some much wider malaise. Including in Europe, where Obama and what his election represented was largely popular. To me it’s part of some wider wave of shit. Some get swallowed by it, some add to its size and some ride it. Just as I don’t think it’s a wave Trump created as such, I don’t think it’s one Obama did via his election, or really any other singular kind of events. It also took a while but there was pushes then, and before Obama from some of the grass roots to push the GOP in this kind of direction. That was already there, it just wasn’t as developed. In Obama you also had someone kinda popular enough to triumph anyway. Finally I guess you add the maturation of the internet news outrage machine that is notably worse now than even the relatively recent Obama years. People haven’t got stupider, but their views certainly have. Not exclusive to morons, but let’s go with morons. If you’re not that bright, if you broadly just parrot mainstream opinion, you’re at least likely to be in some ballpark of correct, or if not correct, at least within some framework of reasonable disagreement. If you’re not that bright and go to ‘do your own research’, you’re far more likely to just be catastrophically wrong, or inhabiting a different reality altogether. This isn’t to say that I’m eulogising some great age of veracity, it wasn’t. But the mainstream media, or more accurately a reasonable trust in at least some of it acted as some vague central pole around which discourse happened and gated out some (not all) of the absolute bullshit. I think this has benefitted MAGA types far more than those on the left of the spectrum. If your underlying desire really is ‘I’m angry at X, someone should fix it’, facts don’t really matter, you just gotta get enough people angry with you, and someone who’ll do what you want. The left aren’t saints obviously, they aren’t immune. But less susceptible I think it’s fair to say. In a crude sense, they’d prefer not to be angry at x problem they see, they’d prefer the problem fixed and fixed with sensible, evidence-based policy. To a degree as well it’s somewhat swallowed up ye olde mainstream conservative as well, I’d include them as victims of the shit wave. I’m not adding a million caveats, so don’t nitpick me too hard folks :p I think broadly via whatever confluence of factors you’ve got a lot of angry idiots, but while they were always part of the electorate you needed to somewhat placate, they were the fringes. Now that’s almost inverted in some ways. And what’s more, these people can never be wrong. Ever! Watch it, guara-fucking-tee it. If x Trump policy bombs, it will never be his fault, or theirs for supporting him, some other actor will be inserted. That’s from me what’s really indicative behaviour of the cult mentality, and why I think it’s perfectly appropriate to call folks cultists. Sadly I think I’ve a better gauge on why we’re in this sorry mess than suggestions on how to get out of it, but that’s my half a dollar. I know you said to PM but I think it’s an interesting question that fits the thread’s remit. This is fine. Sorry it took me a second to respond. I agree with most of what you're saying really. I think the anger thing just overtook any modicum of common sense and this is where we stand. It's an interesting study nonetheless. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15584 Posts
On February 13 2025 06:38 Gorsameth wrote: if you don't think its (just) racism what about Obama was so deeply offensive? Because from the outside it certainly does look like Conservative America lost its shit because a black man became President. Its a bit difficult to describe, but I will do my best. Please ask for clarification where needed. Obama was the first democrat president to actually critique republicans. A large part of his "change" message in 2008 was an assessment of republicans that was much more honest than presidents before him. What we generally view as "decorum" manifested as dishonesty and ignoring major issues. Before George W Bush annihilated support for republicans, catering to the "centrist" was a key consideration in any presidential campaign. It may be hard to remember in the current age of populism, but politicians used to be incredibly flip-floppy and slimy in how they would avoid committing to certain ideals. The whole "politician non-answer" was alive and well during that time, but it wasn't nearly as important after GWB tanked support for republicans. Obama capitalized on that and really pushed the dagger in. His criticisms were more direct, specific, and condescending. He really made republicans look like a complete joke. And people were ready to listen to all of it because of GWB and the disaster of the Iraq war. Republicans were in the same desperate need of a "party refresh" as democrats are today. We all forget how effective a speaker Obama is until he gives another big speech. Black People have a certain whimsical charm and charisma other races simply don't have. It is hard to describe but I know every single person reading this post vaguely understands what I am pointing at. Obama's education, energy, likability, and appearance/stature combined perfectly with his whimsical charm and charisma to deliver some absolutely scathing criticisms of conservative politicians and the current "metagame" of conservative ideology. The unmistakable "Blackness" of his speaking and charm, wrongly labeled as less-than by many Americans who would not consider themselves racists, made his speeches and messaging all the more gut wrenching. You know how there is a certain depth of criticism or insult only a family member can achieve? Something that cuts so deep, it could only come from someone you love deeply? Obama's speeches benefited from the combination of all the factors I described to create that same level of existential wounding. There are psychological dynamics that describe the ways humans identify with their leaders and their group identity. These dynamics vary person to person, but they are most pronounced among conservatives. Conservative propensity for reverence for authority/leadership/hierarchy lead to these existential wounds cutting deeply into all of the diehard conservatives listening to Rush Limbaugh and other personalities at the time. And this all went on for 8 years. People joke about how Obama dissing Trump at the correspondents dinner is what fueled his hatred-led presidential campaign, but I do think its true. Obama can strike people's souls. While the intensity with which Obama broadly struck conservatives varied throughout his 8 years as president, certain events wounded certain conservatives more intensely. The end result was a diehard group of conservatives who had become so resentful they would never recover. They felt bullied, weak, and hated Obama whimsical charm and charisma defining the nation's identity. That is why a huge majority of conservatives will tell you Obama was "the one who first divided the nation". They blame Obama for the way he made them feel. His criticisms cut them too deeply for them to move past. Their previous identities too hollow to roll with the punches, only anger was enough to make them feel strong again. They became so consumed by their anger and resentment they lost their ability to view democrats as anything other than an enemy. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21613 Posts
That, combined with certainly still latent racism, would indeed bite deep because of 'need' for hierarchal figures who are looked up to and seeing them attacked. I get attacking Bush and I would call it justified because he did colossally fuck up, but they won't see it that way. Very insightful. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5500 Posts
On February 13 2025 03:12 KwarK wrote: That’s an extremely flawed description. I could make an equally rosy description of the NKVD and their perfectly above board efforts to protect the worker’s revolution if you were worth the time. The argument being made is that you can’t just go “police, secret police, what does it matter, they’re all police, are you against law enforcement, do you support criminals?” They are different, they have different institutional cultures, different levels of politicization, different reasons for their creation, led by career public servants vs party donors, differing accountability. The OMB is like the police in that it is an institution that serves the public interest rather than the party. DOGE is like the secret police in that it is an arm of the party staffed by party loyalists to be wielded against any the party perceive as politically unreliable. But of course we all know that DOGE is political, that Elon didn’t get to run it through his career of public service, this is you just engaging in bad faith, as always. Yes, it's political. It's 100% political. Why? Because elections have consequences. It's political because the people who win control of the executive branch have the authority to use it to carry out their agenda. There are 3 branches of government in the US. The executive, judicial, and legislative. The bureaucracy is not a branch of government. It's not something that's independent of anybody and can just do whatever it wants. The correct term as you pointed out is "public servant" not "public mutineer." Blumpf has every right to ensure the people UNDER him are working to execute his agenda, support his initiatives, follow his directives. And ensure there isn't a cabal of people all independently working to perpetuate and accumulate their own power, their own and their crony and corporate interests, bloating their own authority and engendering systemic and career corruption, working against both their leader, and against the people, and enriching themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens and their children. Like this is basic when running a government. Most of the framing starts from being psychologically motivated essentially by denial. Disbelief that Blumpf could be president (again). Such that any time he contradicts his SUBORDINATES, it's framed as an abnormal antidemocratic break. Nope. Blumpf does not report to the layers of Democrat and corporatist bureaucrats who were in almost perfect lockstep with Biden rubber stamping each other at almost every turn. (They appear nowhere in the Constitution.) But the real "deep state" is the group of like 100 people hired 3 weeks ago by a guy who just got into office and whose mission is tentatively to be sunset in at most 2 years. Okay. "Career public servant." The fact that something sits in a place for a long time per se does not make it good or justify its existence. The key word is servant, it's not career public mutineer. We vote for leaders. They run things. We don't vote for leaders just so thousands of random employees in positions of authority who are Democrats, or incompetent, or both, can do whatever they want forever and ignore the world outside their circle of co-pilferers. You say it's political, you're absolutely right and I'll be the first to say, "Duh." Everything is political. A random judge whose wife's NGO lives off USAIDbux blocking Blumpf is political. You are finally beginning to understand the American system. The president has every right to run the executive as he sees fit within the bounds of the law, which includes... hiring and firing people. On February 13 2025 03:14 KwarK wrote: For someone who looks at the fucking FEMA and sees a secret conspiracy to push a political agenda through government you’re having a really tough time with DOGE. FEMA is not a conspiracy, it's a publicly wasteful and incompetent agency. Neither is DOGE secret at all, KwarK. The whole mission is transparency. But I freely admit I personally find DOGE to be more similar to OMB than to the Stasi or NKVD or Gestapo. Call me a conspiracy theorist though. | ||
KwarK
United States42490 Posts
| ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany900 Posts
They don't want their agents backround checked, they don't need their computer systems audited. It's not even a government operation at all. It's basicly private citizen Harry Bolz grooming 20 year old boys who worked at his companies or moderated his twitch chat to steal data from the government using his companies ressources. - Where is the paperwork for the "Agents" of DOGE? Contract for employment, backround checks etc? - Where do the computersytems come from they use? - Where are they set up? Where the fuck is DOGE? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16669 Posts
On February 12 2025 19:17 Velr wrote: He is confusing them because he isn't acting rational or smart in any way, shape or form. No one knows what his actual end goal is because his end goal makes no fucking sense. Just so you get it: That is not a good thing. He is pretending not to act rational. He is not crazy. he is "crazy like a fox". I think Trump wants Alberta and this video does a nice job explaining why. TL;DR of Video -Alberta has more oil reserves than all of the USA -Canada's parliament can't be open right now... so Canada can not negotiate -The Premier of Alberta is ALREADY NEGOTIATING with Trump -43% of Canadians are open to deeper integration with the USA -when it comes to Trump ...You must distinguish the noise from the signal .. the signal is ... "lets form a tighter alliance and eliminate all tariffs" -the big prize is an ECONOMIC UNION -Trudeau and Freeland are dumb and hate Trump -Aluminum is made in Canada because Canada has the electricity/power that it takes to make Aluminum I'll add to it. Alberta is more likely than any other Canadian province to vote Republican. Alberta will get the oil pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that they've always wanted. When Canadians move out of province they usually head to Alberta. It has the best economic opportunities within Canada. Trump wants that and he wants all the oil reserves in Alberta. Trump is smarter and more qualified than Trudeau and Freeland. Freeland has zero experience in Finance and never should've been Finance Minister. Anyhow, It'll be better for Canada for those two unqualified, intellectual lightweights to step aside so that some real leaders with some knowledge and skills can set up a proper deal with Trump. Trudeau and Freeland are lame duck leaders and have combined to wreck Canada. Trump knows all this stuff. So this is what Trump is looking at... he wants some form of ownership of Canada's energy and Canada's energy reserves in a giant deal made by a proper leader.. not the lame duck definition of mediocrity... Justin Trudeau. He might want to simply make Canada's most right wing and most economically successful province, Alberta, as the USA's 51st state. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
You might have some legitimate points here, but the fact that Alberta is more conservative than other provinces in no way, shape or form legitimizes the annexation to the us to gain some sort of monopilical political domination over the other population. Personally I think the entire concept of nations is kind of bullshit and is failing as an experiment with tensions rising everywhere still, but we'll see how it works out eventually. It's basically game theory and as long as one tribe centalizes, it's a non starter to just assume they have the best intentions. I think ultimately organisations like EU and NATO are our best chances to understand that it's basically all just economic zones and best intetests at heart and if/when China and Russia join, there's no more need for hard borders. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany900 Posts
Even speaking about tariffs, will make foreign companies think twice about investing into developement or production for their US exports. His policies are targeting worker's and consumer's rights. With no foreign competition, decreased regulations..domestic robber barons can thrive again. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4725 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24934 Posts
| ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany900 Posts
It's not that there is a powerful supervillain forcing your hand do EVIL. It's mostly because you are a born shithead.. or society has not taken care of you, so you became one. At the next big school shooting, we will again hear about how "EVIL" is suddenly possessing people in this world and blablabla. But it's really just "Big Bob's Gunshop" that sells Assault rifles to mentally unstable teenagers across the street from the school. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24934 Posts
On February 13 2025 19:41 Silvanel wrote: Am I the only one seeing pararels between DOGE/Musk and McCarthy? McCarthy at least had some legitimacy to start and then subsequently grossly overstepped. Musk and DOGE, there’s not even the pretence of legitimacy from day 0. But yeah it’s a pretty bang-on parallel in many ways I think! Also to make it clear I’m not talking any moral legitimacy or whatever here, I mean that the red scare was rather bipartisan in terms of party, had public support and (initially) used mechanisms of state and government somewhat within their remits. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24934 Posts
On February 13 2025 16:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: He is pretending not to act rational. He is not crazy. he is "crazy like a fox". I think Trump wants Alberta and this video does a nice job explaining why. TL;DR of Video -Alberta has more oil reserves than all of the USA -Canada's parliament can't be open right now... so Canada can not negotiate -The Premier of Alberta is ALREADY NEGOTIATING with Trump -43% of Canadians are open to deeper integration with the USA -when it comes to Trump ...You must distinguish the noise from the signal .. the signal is ... "lets form a tighter alliance and eliminate all tariffs" -the big prize is an ECONOMIC UNION -Trudeau and Freeland are dumb and hate Trump -Aluminum is made in Canada because Canada has the electricity/power that it takes to make Aluminum I'll add to it. Alberta is more likely than any other Canadian province to vote Republican. Alberta will get the oil pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that they've always wanted. When Canadians move out of province they usually head to Alberta. It has the best economic opportunities within Canada. Trump wants that and he wants all the oil reserves in Alberta. Trump is smarter and more qualified than Trudeau and Freeland. Freeland has zero experience in Finance and never should've been Finance Minister. Anyhow, It'll be better for Canada for those two unqualified, intellectual lightweights to step aside so that some real leaders with some knowledge and skills can set up a proper deal with Trump. Trudeau and Freeland are lame duck leaders and have combined to wreck Canada. Trump knows all this stuff. So this is what Trump is looking at... he wants some form of ownership of Canada's energy and Canada's energy reserves in a giant deal made by a proper leader.. not the lame duck definition of mediocrity... Justin Trudeau. He might want to simply make Canada's most right wing and most economically successful province, Alberta, as the USA's 51st state. Ok so, bolded points in turn. - Sure, and they’re Canada’s last I checked. - If Canada can’t collectively negotiate properly right now, why not wait until such a time as they are able? Which isn’t even all that long. - Which is 57% who are either happy with the current state of affairs, or want less. And if you have a full 4 years of Trump behaving as he has thus far, the number of people who want further integration drops. Not because they hate America or don’t see the pragmatic value, but simply because tying yourself to an increasingly volatile neighbour makes planning difficult. - That’s not how signal/noise works. In that analogy there’s noise obscuring a signal, but the signal is still there. In this instance it’s all noise, no signal, or alternatively and more obviously, it isn’t noise, it is the signal. - The key word in ‘economic union’ worth focusing on is the ‘union’ part. If that’s your goal, you don’t spend your time strongarming the other party, you set something up that’s mutually beneficial that you both buy into. This isn’t some hypothetical entity, one only has to look at Europe and the EU/EEC to see what that looks like and how it was formed and maintained. - Subjective, I’d disagree personally but hey. Also many Canadians do as well so there is that pesky element. Regardless, it’s been Trump who historically has made foreign diplomatic interjections based on his personal enmities/favourites more so than other leaders. Going back to a previous point, so what if Trudeau is dumb and hates Trump, he’s a lame duck so wait him out no? - Yes, certain nations have raw resources, or other environmental advantages in resource production. This is the whole basis of international trade, it’s why people keep saying trying to equalise this with tariffs alone is daft. - What does a ‘proper deal’ for Canada look like, to you? And how does it fix what Trudeau et al apparently wrecked? - You said it right here, ‘some kind of ownership of Canada’s energy and energy reserves…’ You also talk of ‘merely’ making Alberta some kind of 51st State. That is not an economic union that is just annexing part of one state and incorporating it into another. I notice you often group and mention ‘most right wing’ and ‘most economically successful’ together when you mention Alberta, all the time. While correct sure, and whether intentional or not by so often grouping them together like that the implication is that there’s a link between the two. Couldn’t also be all that oil no? It seems we’re in for another 4 years of people pointing out what Trump is actually doing, look he’s doing it now! and being told that no actually it’s part of some masterful gambit despite no evidence but extreme, tortuous copium being there. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5500 Posts
On February 13 2025 16:20 KwarK wrote: You're a conspiracy theorist because you believe FEMA is a secret arm of revolutionary bolshevism buddy. Thinking you can tell people what they believe is not sufficient to replace, cover up, or distract from the fact that you don't know what you believe, if anything. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24934 Posts
On February 13 2025 22:05 oBlade wrote: Thinking you can tell people what they believe is not sufficient to replace, cover up, or distract from the fact that you don't know what you believe, if anything. Given, as I frequently concede, I lack the ability to peer into the souls of men, I gotta go off what folks say or do. I can’t really blame you, you make a good go of it. You can’t rationalise the MAGA platform because it’s completely logical incoherent and it’s impossible to do without just dispensing with logical frameworks and going with ‘vibes’ as the youth say. As a purely intellectual challenge, hey it’s tricky. If I’m back in debate class, it’s a combo of ‘oh fuck, I’m meant to defend this? Mitigated by some feeling of ‘oh I like a challenge’. However, the absolute best I would do is lose, to anyone in that class and get a pat on the back for a good effort with a shit hand. | ||
| ||
