EPTNot excusing anything he's done btw. Just willing to give him a small bit of rope to see what he actually accomplishes. Again, I don't see a lot of positives coming out of this administration by the end. Even at mid terms I think this whole thing will be a dumpster fire and most likely 80% of the appointees will leave. Just like last time.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4764
| 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 | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8920 Posts
Not excusing anything he's done btw. Just willing to give him a small bit of rope to see what he actually accomplishes. Again, I don't see a lot of positives coming out of this administration by the end. Even at mid terms I think this whole thing will be a dumpster fire and most likely 80% of the appointees will leave. Just like last time. | ||
KwarK
United States41928 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8920 Posts
On February 14 2025 03:40 KwarK wrote: He was heavily involved in a “what happens if you stop vaccinating kids against the measles” experiment in American Samoa. It turns out that 80 kids die of the measles, an entirely preventable disease. For balance RFK Jr maintains that we can’t really be sure why those kids with the red spots all over their bodies all decided to die for no reason during the experiment so it’s not cut and dry. More research is required and fortunately he now has the power to do a LOT more. I see. Well, we're fucked properly, aren't we? I retract my previous posts. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43752 Posts
On February 14 2025 03:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: KwarK, DPB, Zam, et al. I agree with what you're saying, really. I don't know if I heard the story on the dead children thing to be honest. Definitely not going to google that query, so I'll take your word on that. I'm only saying that, in this capacity, he seems like he'll actually consider his platform and take scientific data into account for some of the stuff he tries to inact. I know he was anti-vax and all that stuff, but a lot of people were and when the shit hit the fan, they changed tunes quick. So while I'm hoping we don't need another crisis like that for him to be on the side of the consumer/citizenry, I think he'll do a bit of good but ultimately end up overwriting that with some truly stupid shit. Not out of inherent evil, just being a brain-wormed human. Not excusing anything he's done btw. Just willing to give him a small bit of rope to see what he actually accomplishes. Again, I don't see a lot of positives coming out of this administration by the end. Even at mid terms I think this whole thing will be a dumpster fire and most likely 80% of the appointees will leave. Just like last time. I think the bar for Trump's administration/cabinet/appointees has become so devastatingly low, that it's insane that RFK Jr. is considered a slight glimmer of hope, but this is ultimately the train wreck that America voted for. And yeah, I don't think RFK Jr. is inherently evil, but I also don't think he's open-minded or interested in taking scientific data into account. If he was actually persuadable, then he would have been persuaded already, and he wouldn't currently be an anti-vaxxer lunatic. Maybe he won't single-handedly end our country while maniacally cackling, but he's still not one of the good/helpful guys. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15391 Posts
On February 14 2025 03:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This would only mean something if he was the only human on the face of the earth who wanted to fight against red-3 / food dye. Surely there exists at least one credentialed medical expert who would promote a crusade against food dye while not simultaneously giving kids polio, measles, and covid? A broken clock may be right twice a day, but you still shouldn't ever trust it. It's unreliable, and there are plenty of working clocks out there. We're getting the dude anyway. This isn't even lesser evil stuff. This is the evil we get. You mention other people existing, but I'm only bummed thinking about that because Biden didn't get any of those people to ban these other dyes or other problematic substances. FDA banning red3 a month ago, yet leaving so many, is just such an grim situation. 8 years of Obama and 4 years of Biden and those dyes are still stuffed into our food? What a shit show. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5256 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4554 Posts
| ||
|
Incomplete..ReV
Norway613 Posts
On February 14 2025 04:26 Uldridge wrote: Luckily literally all your current problems will be gone in 4 years. The rise of many dictatorships start where people are supposed to resign after a certain period of time, only to find a way to change legislation so that they may stay as long as they want. Should Trump start talking about extending his stay, perhaps due to some "turbulence in society at said moment", all alarms should go off. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21332 Posts
On February 14 2025 05:26 Incomplete..ReV wrote: "I was so prosecuted during my first term, so unfair. Witchunt, it really wasn't fair. it shouldn't count. It shouldn't count, I was so opposed, it wasn't fair, it shouldn't count. I'm just saying, most prosecuted President in history. Total Witchhunt"The rise of many dictatorships start where people are supposed to resign after a certain period of time, only to find a way to change legislation so that they may stay as long as they want. Should Trump start talking about extending his stay, perhaps due to some "turbulence in society at said moment", all alarms should go off. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43752 Posts
On February 14 2025 05:26 Incomplete..ReV wrote: The rise of many dictatorships start where people are supposed to resign after a certain period of time, only to find a way to change legislation so that they may stay as long as they want. Should Trump start talking about extending his stay, perhaps due to some "turbulence in society at said moment", all alarms should go off. Oh, he's already started talking about that  This was over the past few weeks: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wHPxoNEmZ7k And he's been talking about wanting at least three terms for years now; this was from 4 years ago: | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22659 Posts
On February 14 2025 06:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Oh, he's already started talking about that This was over the past few weeks: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wHPxoNEmZ7k And he's been talking about wanting at least three terms for years now; this was from 4 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhmbQZtcdsw Would you (anyone really) want Democrats to run against him, or draw a line and say that he's not going to be a 3-term president under any conditions? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4554 Posts
| ||
|
KT_Elwood
685 Posts
On February 14 2025 03:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think the bar for Trump's administration/cabinet/appointees has become so devastatingly low, that it's insane that RFK Jr. is considered a slight glimmer of hope, but this is ultimately the train wreck that America voted for. The fifty something white guy asskisser types in this administrations are so cringy. Every second sentence must include asskissing to trump, otherwise they will be replaced. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43752 Posts
On February 14 2025 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote: Would you (anyone really) want Democrats to run against him, or draw a line and say that he's not going to be a 3-term president under any conditions? I don't want Democrats to run against him again, because he'll always have a decent chance of winning. The dumbest thing that Democrats could do is "allow" him to run again, thinking that he's run out of steam or that Republicans will stop supporting him just because of something as "trivial" as the Constitution saying that what he's doing is illegal. They don't care. He shouldn't be allowed to become president a third time, because it's against the law. I'd love for Democrats to enforce the Constitution, if need be, but I imagine that some Republicans would also need to align themselves with the Democrats and stand up to Trump, and I don't see that ever happening. I think the simplest, easiest, most realistic way that Trump doesn't run for a third time is if he - and only he - decides that he doesn't want to be president anymore. Eventually, he'll get too tired and too old and too bored and too annoyed at dealing with elections and presidencies, and he'll stop (or die)... hopefully, this happens by 2027 or 2028. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22659 Posts
On February 14 2025 07:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I don't want Democrats to run against him again, because he'll always have a decent chance of winning. The dumbest thing that Democrats could do is "allow" him to run again, thinking that he's run out of steam or that Republicans will stop supporting him just because of something as "trivial" as the Constitution saying that what he's doing is illegal. They don't care. He shouldn't be allowed to become president a third time, because it's against the law. I'd love for Democrats to enforce the Constitution, if need be, but I imagine that some Republicans would also need to align themselves with the Democrats and stand up to Trump, and I don't see that ever happening. I think the simplest, easiest, most realistic way that Trump doesn't run for a third time is if he - and only he - decides that he doesn't want to be president anymore. Eventually, he'll get too tired and too old and too bored and too annoyed at dealing with elections and presidencies, and he'll stop (or die)... hopefully, this happens by 2027 or 2028. The way you phrased that gives me the impression that your plan is to reluctantly/emphatically support whatever "Democrat" runs against Trump in 2028, unless he (and/or his health) decides against having a third term. Is that accurate? EDIT: Seems like this is all lib/Dems/their supporters plan here and otherwise. If it isn't, I'm curious what is? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43752 Posts
On February 14 2025 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote: The way you phrased that gives me the impression that your plan is to reluctantly/emphatically support whatever "Democrat" runs against Trump in 2028, unless he (and/or his health) decides against having a third term. Is that accurate? I won't be voting for Trump or any other Republican alternative/nominee, regardless of Trump's decision/health. That much I know for sure. As far as who I'll end up voting for, there's a very good chance that it'll end up being the Democratic nominee - whoever it is - which is why I think it's important to get involved during the primary and support my preferred Democratic candidate (no idea who will be running just yet). The Democratic party's leadership deserves plenty of criticism from this past election, but that doesn't mean I consider them as bad for our country as the Republican party. I'm also open to seeing if there are any super popular third-party candidates that resonate with me and have a chance at winning, though I'm skeptical based on what I've seen from previous elections. I know you and I have different perspectives on election aspects like whether or not we ought to vote for the lesser of two evils, or which issues ought to be dealbreakers for our votes, and that's fine. I hope that helps clarify my position! | ||
|
Billyboy
436 Posts
On February 14 2025 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Goodbye federal healthcare protections, vaccinations, and medical services. It's up to the states now, which means if we face another epidemic/pandemic (like covid during Trump's first term), things are going to be wayyyyyy worse. Even without a public health crisis in the form of a disease, Republican-led states are going to be facing their own self-made crises within the next decade, from all the anti-vaxxers no longer vaccinating their babies/children. If I were an elementary school teacher in a red state, I would seriously be thinking about a career change. The only ray of hope is RFK jr has done his anti vax thing as a profit generator not out of some actual belief. There is a decent chance in his position now that he can personally profit more from being pro vaccine than anti vax and his perspective magically changes. Now having the American government and policy up for sale is going to be overall bad, and crazy to me that half of your country is excited about it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22659 Posts
On February 14 2025 09:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It does and I do appreciate it. I do feel it reinforces my previous analysis of lib/Dem/their supporters politics in this moment as fundamentally delusional, ahistorical, and insane. I won't be voting for Trump or any other Republican alternative/nominee, regardless of Trump's decision/health. That much I know for sure. As far as who I'll end up voting for, there's a very good chance that it'll end up being the Democratic nominee - whoever it is - which is why I think it's important to get involved during the primary and support my preferred Democratic candidate (no idea who will be running just yet). The Democratic party's leadership deserves plenty of criticism from this past election, but that doesn't mean I consider them as bad for our country as the Republican party. I'm also open to seeing if there are any super popular third-party candidates that resonate with me and have a chance at winning, though I'm skeptical based on what I've seen from previous elections. I know you and I have different perspectives on election aspects like whether or not we ought to vote for the lesser of two evils, or which issues ought to be dealbreakers for our votes, and that's fine. I hope that helps clarify my position! I sincerely don't mean that pejoratively, but I can't even wrap my mind around how you imagine a scenario where Trump is running for a 3rd term and you believe there's a meaningful election against him for Democrats to win. That sounds literally unbelievable to me. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41928 Posts
On February 14 2025 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote: It does and I do appreciate it. I do feel it reinforces my previous analysis of lib/Dem/their supporters politics in this moment as fundamentally delusional, ahistorical, and insane. I sincerely don't mean that pejoratively, but I can't even wrap my mind around how you imagine a scenario where Trump is running for a 3rd term and you believe there's a meaningful election against him for Democrats to win. That sounds literally unbelievable to me. Would you say that in that scenario Trump would have crossed one of your red lines? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13732 Posts
Its very weird for him to act like he's still above trump and the consequences of people trying their best to push voters away from Harris. | ||
| ||
