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.
On February 17 2025 09:31 Sadist wrote: I cannot believe Oblade tried to play the mob boss defense on this one. Oblade seriously it sure seems like you agree with all of this stuff. Own it. Dont try to make excuses.
Its the same play as people who simp for CEOs, theyre the head of the whole organization, how could they possibly know whats going on? Also of course they deserve enormous disproportionate pay packages, they control a whole organization!
I said he doesn't seem to have been personally directly intervened in this situation in either direction, at any time, despite the attempt at framing thusly, which is an important distinction to make if you want to know how the government and the world work and not just throw tomatoes in perpetuity.
On February 17 2025 09:31 Sadist wrote: I cannot believe Oblade tried to play the mob boss defense on this one. Oblade seriously it sure seems like you agree with all of this stuff. Own it. Dont try to make excuses.
Its the same play as people who simp for CEOs, theyre the head of the whole organization, how could they possibly know whats going on? Also of course they deserve enormous disproportionate pay packages, they control a whole organization!
CEOs deserve more compensation for doing better, just like everyone.
On February 17 2025 15:40 oBlade wrote: I did not say he's not "responsible" for it.
I said he doesn't seem to have been personally directly intervened in this situation in either direction, at any time, despite the attempt at framing thusly, which is an important distinction to make if you want to know how the government and the world work and not just throw tomatoes in perpetuity.
On February 17 2025 09:31 Sadist wrote: I cannot believe Oblade tried to play the mob boss defense on this one. Oblade seriously it sure seems like you agree with all of this stuff. Own it. Dont try to make excuses.
Its the same play as people who simp for CEOs, theyre the head of the whole organization, how could they possibly know whats going on? Also of course they deserve enormous disproportionate pay packages, they control a whole organization!
CEOs deserve more compensation for doing better, just like everyone.
You are drawing a meaningless distinction. Either Trump 'did' all the things he instructed other people to do or he didn't.
Looks like European countries are seriously considering their nuclear arsenal. And I guarantee that if Germany is open to discussing how to structure funding for expanding the French nuclear deterrent to properly cover all of Europe, there will be other countries who'll feel more comfortable still with a few nukes of their own.
I don't think that makes NATO countries nor the world a safer place. The non-proliferation treaties exist for a reason, and the US guaranteeing NATO countries fall under its aegis is the only reason most of Europe never bothered developing their own nuclear weapons. Well done, Trump! You're starting another nuclear arms race.
Italy is already selling out to China (take a walk through Rome and see why or talk to enterpreneurs from Milan) and Europe looks to get its energy from the middle east and even Russia if it has to.At this rate Europe becomes part of an Eastern bloc and the US becomes isolated and crazy. But the elections already suggest they are.
The man world probably like to give Russia a free pass and grab something in South America like the Panama channel.
I think he has trouble coming to terms with the issue that the world has caught up economically and other countries also have interests and consumers. But that‘s the capitalist endgame. Who‘s going to reach the bottom last when earth is depleted.
Looks like European countries are seriously considering their nuclear arsenal. And I guarantee that if Germany is open to discussing how to structure funding for expanding the French nuclear deterrent to properly cover all of Europe, there will be other countries who'll feel more comfortable still with a few nukes of their own.
I don't think that makes NATO countries nor the world a safer place. The non-proliferation treaties exist for a reason, and the US guaranteeing NATO countries fall under its aegis is the only reason most of Europe never bothered developing their own nuclear weapons. Well done, Trump! You're starting another nuclear arms race.
The idea of an EU army is impossible but the idea of smaller allies defensive blocks with integrated armies (France/Germany, Nordics, Poland/Baltics, possibly the south) with their own nuclear deterent is certainly possible, maybe even likely.
Using France as a base for development of weapons is logical but I don't think the rest of Europe is OK with them holding the key. Germany for sure but Finland and Poland probably have different ideas from France on when escalation is a good idea.
To be honest, since the US has fallen under the spell of robber barons and dictators already, Europe has to get rid of the populist pests that want to bow to the likes of putin and go hack up the achievements of free societies because they don't understand them.
Letting in Putin means that he will steal your dough. Same with Trump now, who has become an even dumber flim-flam person and more destructive using Harry Bolz and the Project2025 people.
My proposition to the EU, UK, Canada, Australia and Japan would be:
- Demand all essential big-Tech companies to run an autarc systems with no standing connection to US infrastructure to make sure that economy isn't interrupted by e.g.: Trump admin "pulling the plug on Microsoft Windows in the EU"
- Demand Source code of proprietary Firmware
- Demand payment for law protecting US interlectual property
- Full stop on US based defense corp contracts - Why would you buy an F35, when it can be remotely grounded by a friend of Putin?
- Create a free trade union of NATO excluding the US.
A nice little summary of Trump's and Musk's and Republicans' atrocities over the past month, ending with a call to action for Democratic voters to reach out to (and even primary) any current Democratic representatives who aren't willing to fight for Americans.
On February 17 2025 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A nice little summary of Trump's and Musk's and Republicans' atrocities over the past month, ending with a call to action for Democratic voters to reach out to (and even primary) any current Democratic representatives who aren't willing to fight for Americans.
Blocked in my humble country apparently, but even without watching I can still approve of a call to more aggressively hold Dems to account in this regard.
Sure you aren’t going to win every fight, but if you don’t fight you won’t win even one.
On February 17 2025 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A nice little summary of Trump's and Musk's and Republicans' atrocities over the past month, ending with a call to action for Democratic voters to reach out to (and even primary) any current Democratic representatives who aren't willing to fight for Americans.
This is standard for every election with the primary disagreements being who qualifies as "Democrat representatives that aren't willing to fight for Americans".
Alternatively, it's a lowering of the bar from "support politicians that best represent your policy preferences" to "only challenge politicians you can explicitly demonstrate refuse to do anything that could arguably be construed as fighting for Americans" (which I'm pretty sure Trump supporters still are).
Just to demonstrate this, who are we talking about? Did Oliver mention anyone specific to primary? Do you have anyone/anything specific that is demonstrative of "Democrat not willing to fight for Americans" in mind? Does anyone? It's sorta like a Democrat "thoughts and prayers". It's a nice thing to say, but it doesn't really mean anything.
On February 17 2025 18:31 Vivax wrote: Italy is already selling out to China (take a walk through Rome and see why or talk to enterpreneurs from Milan) and Europe looks to get its energy from the middle east and even Russia if it has to.At this rate Europe becomes part of an Eastern bloc and the US becomes isolated and crazy. But the elections already suggest they are.
The man world probably like to give Russia a free pass and grab something in South America like the Panama channel.
I think he has trouble coming to terms with the issue that the world has caught up economically and other countries also have interests and consumers. But that‘s the capitalist endgame. Who‘s going to reach the bottom last when earth is depleted.
I think you are way over estimating his thoughtfulness. I think every decisions is whatever pops into his mind based on what his fragile ego thinks makes him look the toughest/coolest.
On February 17 2025 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A nice little summary of Trump's and Musk's and Republicans' atrocities over the past month, ending with a call to action for Democratic voters to reach out to (and even primary) any current Democratic representatives who aren't willing to fight for Americans.
This is standard for every election with the primary disagreements being who qualifies as "Democrat representatives that aren't willing to fight for Americans".
Alternatively, it's a lowering of the bar from "support politicians that best represent your policy preferences" to "only challenge politicians you can explicitly demonstrate refuse to do anything that could arguably be construed as fighting for Americans" (which I'm pretty sure Trump supporters still are).
Just to demonstrate this, who are we talking about? Did Oliver mention anyone specific to primary? Do you have anyone/anything specific that is demonstrative of "Democrat not willing to fight for Americans" in mind? Does anyone? It's sorta like a Democrat "thoughts and prayers". It's a nice thing to say, but it doesn't really mean anything.
On February 17 2025 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A nice little summary of Trump's and Musk's and Republicans' atrocities over the past month, ending with a call to action for Democratic voters to reach out to (and even primary) any current Democratic representatives who aren't willing to fight for Americans.
This is standard for every election with the primary disagreements being who qualifies as "Democrat representatives that aren't willing to fight for Americans".
Alternatively, it's a lowering of the bar from "support politicians that best represent your policy preferences" to "only challenge politicians you can explicitly demonstrate refuse to do anything that could arguably be construed as fighting for Americans" (which I'm pretty sure Trump supporters still are).
Just to demonstrate this, who are we talking about? Did Oliver mention anyone specific to primary? Do you have anyone/anything specific that is demonstrative of "Democrat not willing to fight for Americans" in mind? Does anyone? It's sorta like a Democrat "thoughts and prayers". It's a nice thing to say, but it doesn't really mean anything.
26:50 onwards, JO gave some examples.
"Examples" of "Democrats not willing to fight for Americans"? I got from the video: Dick Durbin because he didn't know who was going to lead the charge against Trump. Hakeem Jeffries, based on a pretty common sentiment that Democrats should choose their battles, and a terrible choice for a player in a baseball metaphor.
You've started by suggesting Pelosi's hand-picked replacement Dem leader of the House is "not willing to fight for Americans". If that's who people are supposed to primary, that's literally going to be a majority of the party.
This is what I mean by it not really meaning anything. You're not actually suggesting to or going to try to primary either of them (or most of the party). Durbin won his primary 1,446,118 - 0. This is just deeply unserious.
Tell you what though, I'll call Durbin and Jeffries office and tell them to fight Trump harder, whether he likes it or not. What could I get you to do in a comparable good faith effort toward trying out socialist recommendations as well?
GH, do you not feel this situation developing organically is actually the best we can hope for? I would argue the existing dems just kinda waddling in circles creates the ideal condition for people with a bit more fire in their eyes to step up.
We always talk about how dems being a placeholder party prevents better options from stepping in. But here, we see the opposite. Dems are truly just opting not to fill that role. People yelling about it and getting frustrated by dems being useless is ideal. It gives rising stars a clear path to distinguish themselves.
And I still think its a bit disingenuous to pretend we ought to assume Jeffries would turn into a revolutionary overnight. Its not who he has ever been. Its not who he was elected to be. It wasn't the path he walked and we shouldn't even want him to try to be that because he would do a really bad job.
On February 17 2025 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A nice little summary of Trump's and Musk's and Republicans' atrocities over the past month, ending with a call to action for Democratic voters to reach out to (and even primary) any current Democratic representatives who aren't willing to fight for Americans.
This is standard for every election with the primary disagreements being who qualifies as "Democrat representatives that aren't willing to fight for Americans".
Alternatively, it's a lowering of the bar from "support politicians that best represent your policy preferences" to "only challenge politicians you can explicitly demonstrate refuse to do anything that could arguably be construed as fighting for Americans" (which I'm pretty sure Trump supporters still are).
Just to demonstrate this, who are we talking about? Did Oliver mention anyone specific to primary? Do you have anyone/anything specific that is demonstrative of "Democrat not willing to fight for Americans" in mind? Does anyone? It's sorta like a Democrat "thoughts and prayers". It's a nice thing to say, but it doesn't really mean anything.
26:50 onwards, JO gave some examples.
"Examples" of "Democrats not willing to fight for Americans"? I got from the video: Dick Durbin because he didn't know who was going to lead the charge against Trump. Hakeem Jeffries, based on a pretty common sentiment that Democrats should choose their battles, and a terrible choice for a player in a baseball metaphor.
You've started by suggesting Pelosi's hand-picked replacement Dem leader of the House is "not willing to fight for Americans". If that's who people are supposed to primary, that's literally going to be a majority of the party.
This is what I mean by it not really meaning anything. You're not actually suggesting to or going to try to primary either of them (or most of the party). Durbin won his primary 1,446,118 - 0. This is just deeply unserious.
Tell you what though, I'll call Durbin and Jeffries office and tell them to fight Trump harder, whether he likes it or not. What could I get you to do in a comparable good faith effort toward trying out socialist recommendations as well?
Sounds like a fair exchange would be to sign up for that general strike.
On February 17 2025 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A nice little summary of Trump's and Musk's and Republicans' atrocities over the past month, ending with a call to action for Democratic voters to reach out to (and even primary) any current Democratic representatives who aren't willing to fight for Americans.
This is standard for every election with the primary disagreements being who qualifies as "Democrat representatives that aren't willing to fight for Americans".
Alternatively, it's a lowering of the bar from "support politicians that best represent your policy preferences" to "only challenge politicians you can explicitly demonstrate refuse to do anything that could arguably be construed as fighting for Americans" (which I'm pretty sure Trump supporters still are).
Just to demonstrate this, who are we talking about? Did Oliver mention anyone specific to primary? Do you have anyone/anything specific that is demonstrative of "Democrat not willing to fight for Americans" in mind? Does anyone? It's sorta like a Democrat "thoughts and prayers". It's a nice thing to say, but it doesn't really mean anything.
26:50 onwards, JO gave some examples.
"Examples" of "Democrats not willing to fight for Americans"? I got from the video: Dick Durbin because he didn't know who was going to lead the charge against Trump. Hakeem Jeffries, based on a pretty common sentiment that Democrats should choose their battles, and a terrible choice for a player in a baseball metaphor.
You've started by suggesting Pelosi's hand-picked replacement Dem leader of the House is "not willing to fight for Americans". If that's who people are supposed to primary, that's literally going to be a majority of the party.
This is what I mean by it not really meaning anything. You're not actually suggesting to or going to try to primary either of them (or most of the party). Durbin won his primary 1,446,118 - 0. This is just deeply unserious.
Tell you what though, I'll call Durbin and Jeffries office and tell them to fight Trump harder, whether he likes it or not. What could I get you to do in a comparable good faith effort toward trying out socialist recommendations as well?
And yeah, if Jeffries and the majority of the party aren't willing to fight, then they should be primaried by people who will. More progressive / left-wing / socialist-adjacent candidates could have an opening there, if they wanted to run.
@Mohdoo: "the best I could hope for" is significantly better, but I think Democrats not even having a performative (while still wholly ineffective) plan has exposed them in a way that can be exploited by savy political entities. I think "the opposite" would more be 80 year old Durbin saying tomorrow that he's going to make space for the next generation of Democrats by not running in 2026 and supporting the nominee (without a thumb on the scale for who that is).
On February 17 2025 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: A nice little summary of Trump's and Musk's and Republicans' atrocities over the past month, ending with a call to action for Democratic voters to reach out to (and even primary) any current Democratic representatives who aren't willing to fight for Americans.
This is standard for every election with the primary disagreements being who qualifies as "Democrat representatives that aren't willing to fight for Americans".
Alternatively, it's a lowering of the bar from "support politicians that best represent your policy preferences" to "only challenge politicians you can explicitly demonstrate refuse to do anything that could arguably be construed as fighting for Americans" (which I'm pretty sure Trump supporters still are).
Just to demonstrate this, who are we talking about? Did Oliver mention anyone specific to primary? Do you have anyone/anything specific that is demonstrative of "Democrat not willing to fight for Americans" in mind? Does anyone? It's sorta like a Democrat "thoughts and prayers". It's a nice thing to say, but it doesn't really mean anything.
26:50 onwards, JO gave some examples.
"Examples" of "Democrats not willing to fight for Americans"? I got from the video: Dick Durbin because he didn't know who was going to lead the charge against Trump. Hakeem Jeffries, based on a pretty common sentiment that Democrats should choose their battles, and a terrible choice for a player in a baseball metaphor.
You've started by suggesting Pelosi's hand-picked replacement Dem leader of the House is "not willing to fight for Americans". If that's who people are supposed to primary, that's literally going to be a majority of the party.
This is what I mean by it not really meaning anything. You're not actually suggesting to or going to try to primary either of them (or most of the party). Durbin won his primary 1,446,118 - 0. This is just deeply unserious.
Tell you what though, I'll call Durbin and Jeffries office and tell them to fight Trump harder, whether he likes it or not. What could I get you to do in a comparable good faith effort toward trying out socialist recommendations as well?
And yeah, if Jeffries and the majority of the party aren't willing to fight, then they should be primaried by people who will. More progressive / left-wing / socialist-adjacent candidates could have an opening there, if they wanted to run.
Yeah, that was basically my point on Durbin. I'm presuming some basic understanding of electoral politics here and the enormity of ginning up a primary against someone like that. You have to start yesterday. You can't wait 3-6 months to find a candidate/decide if you need to primary him/most of the party or not.
Let's just bring this home. Is Booker demonstrably more willing to fight than Durbin or Jeffries? How can we honestly/objectively measure this to know whether we need to be working together on primarying Booker? We can't wait long (were talking days/weeks if that, not months) to seriously start the groundwork to run these primaries as JO pointed out.
We need to look at the metrics you apply to Booker so the rest of us can apply it locally and we can get a better picture for how many primaries we're talking about, where they are, what the conditions for all of them are, and where it makes sense to dedicate time and resources.
Curious what some people here think of the money USAID was giving out for contracts to overseas countries. I get it's a drop in the bucket but you could argue it's still unnecessary spending. Not to mention some of these countries are so corrupt you could be sure the money didn't end up in the right hands.
Most people especially in Asian countries would be absolutely pissed if the government was giving away money like that.
EPT
