| 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 | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44137 Posts
On February 26 2025 23:44 Fildun wrote: Did y'all really give up your entire democracy over the price of eggs lol Nope, it's even worse than that, because Trump never actually had any intention of lowering the price of eggs. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23105 Posts
On February 26 2025 22:47 Gorsameth wrote: No my point was that the Democrats don't have a project 2025 (fascist takeover of the government) because they are not planning a fascist takeoever of the government but to actually govern in a democracy. LibHorizons: That's what "Democrat version" means. In part, that it's not a fascist takeover. I think you knew that though. I mean a deliberate and executable plan. One to gain power and use it, that people can organize around accomplishing. For instance:+ Show Spoiler + To flesh out DPB's advocacy for JO's advice to primary Democrats that aren't showing sufficient will to fight/oppose the Trump admin's agenda a bit: Not every Democrat needs to be primaried. Those of us in safe blue states with Democrats unlikely to not clear the bar for not being primaried can direct resources toward places where the Democrats do need to be primaried. But we need a reasonably objective way to determine which is which. Thus far Democrats and their supporters have failed to provide that. I'm open to hearing their ideas, but lacking that, I feel obligated as a progressive to present something that is better than nothing. Sooo... Having a deliberate and executable plan (with a simple name like "project 2025" or "The New Deal" or whatever) and making support for it be the litmus test. You support it, no primary. You don't support it, you get primaried, and the party doesn't bail you out. The party should let Bernie, AOC, and The Squad lead the way in setting the terms, but they've all shown they can be very reasonable and show deference to the party generally. So it's not as if they would ignore the needs/preferences of the more centrist parts of the party entirely, or even to the degree they've been pushed to the periphery by said centrists. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany895 Posts
The Republican budget resolution directs specific committees to achieve spending cuts or increases. Republicans leaked menu of options includes: At least $880 billion in cuts for the Energy and Commerce Committee, which could target Medicaid, Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium assistance, and repeal Inflation Reduction Act policies. At least $330 billion in cuts for the Education and Workforce Committee, which could target student loan programs, income driven repayment, and Pell grants, Head Start, and School lunch. At least $230 billion in cuts for the Agriculture Committee, which could target SNAP. At least $50 billion in cuts for the Oversight Committee, which could target government employee retirement benefits and changes to federal workforce. At least $10 billion in cuts for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which could target restricting Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding, Essential Air Service, increasing the “tonnage tax” on cargo, and raiding the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. At least $1 billion in cuts for the Financial Services Committee, which could target the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and funding for financial regulators. At least $1 billion in cuts for the Natural Resources Committee, which could include expanded oil and gas leasing and the repeal of Inflation Reduction Act policies. Up to $4.5 trillion in new spending for the Ways and Means Committee, which could include tax cuts for the top one percent, repeal of Inflation Reduction Act policies, cuts to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Social Services Block Grant, cuts in Medicare payments to providers, and cuts to Affordable Care Act premium assistance. https://amo.house.gov/press-release/amo-blasts-republican-controlled-house-rules-committee-for-rejecting-pro-medicaid-and-snap-amendments-to-budget-resolution Okay they cut the yearly budget of 1 trillion by 1 trillion in 10 years, so only every 10th patient stops receiving healthcare, which is only about 7 million of the poorest people. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
On February 26 2025 23:44 Fildun wrote: Did y'all really give up your entire democracy over the price of eggs lol This is what happens when Congress refuses to scale back the power of the Executive Branch. Democrats got complacent that they could hold onto the White House despite overwhelming evidence of their growing unpopularity. They didn't try to scale back any of Trump's power grabs in Joe Biden's first term or use Obama's 2 terms to scale back the power of executive instead they just kept expanding it. This is what happens when Supreme Court justices refuse to fucking retire when they should because they want a hand picked successor to replace them only to die when a Republican is in office and they get replaced with his crony. It wasn't the price of eggs that brought us here. It was decades of complacency by the moderates in this country who refused to listen to voter issues and kept stoking the fires of extremism for the purposes of getting easy votes without actually doing anything to help voters. This is decades of systemic problems and corruption eroding away at an Empire from within until it builds into a full blown crisis. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5500 Posts
On February 27 2025 00:41 KT_Elwood wrote: https://amo.house.gov/press-release/amo-blasts-republican-controlled-house-rules-committee-for-rejecting-pro-medicaid-and-snap-amendments-to-budget-resolution Okay they cut the yearly budget of 1 trillion by 1 trillion in 10 years, so only every 10th patient stops receiving healthcare, which is only about 7 million of the poorest people. Are you able/willing to acknowledge the Energy and Commerce Committee drafts legislation about things besides medicare and medicaid spending? | ||
|
Yurie
11792 Posts
On February 27 2025 00:41 KT_Elwood wrote: https://amo.house.gov/press-release/amo-blasts-republican-controlled-house-rules-committee-for-rejecting-pro-medicaid-and-snap-amendments-to-budget-resolution Okay they cut the yearly budget of 1 trillion by 1 trillion in 10 years, so only every 10th patient stops receiving healthcare, which is only about 7 million of the poorest people. Is it really for the top 1%? I would assume he would target the top 0.1% or 0.01% for tax reduction. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9168 Posts
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/2f0288f6-3f6a-4334-b666-3f0122981842 Should we expect the same scenario that happened with Canada and Mexico or something more? | ||
|
Yurie
11792 Posts
On February 27 2025 04:21 Sent. wrote: Donald Trump just threatened to impose 25% tarrifs on European goods. He also said "the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States". Source: https://www.ft.com/content/2f0288f6-3f6a-4334-b666-3f0122981842 Should we expect the same scenario that happened with Canada and Mexico or something more? His normal strategy seems to be to make a demand he knows he will not get and see how the other side reacts to it. If they actually fold, happy accident. If they hard ball him, oh well forget about it. If they talk, he knows he will get the better deal. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/02/26/trump-pushes-25-per-cent-tariffs-on-canada-and-mexico-to-april-2/ Tariffs pushed to April 2nd. We still have to care that they could come but he's not going to drop the guillotine just yet. I'm on the anything but American train already, with a preference for Canadian where possible. I don't make much of a difference as a consumer, but I'm quite sure there's much larger businesses that have already made dents in border state economies. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
On February 27 2025 02:33 Vindicare605 wrote: This is what happens when Congress refuses to scale back the power of the Executive Branch. Democrats got complacent that they could hold onto the White House despite overwhelming evidence of their growing unpopularity. They didn't try to scale back any of Trump's power grabs in Joe Biden's first term or use Obama's 2 terms to scale back the power of executive instead they just kept expanding it. This is what happens when Supreme Court justices refuse to fucking retire when they should because they want a hand picked successor to replace them only to die when a Republican is in office and they get replaced with his crony. It wasn't the price of eggs that brought us here. It was decades of complacency by the moderates in this country who refused to listen to voter issues and kept stoking the fires of extremism for the purposes of getting easy votes without actually doing anything to help voters. This is decades of systemic problems and corruption eroding away at an Empire from within until it builds into a full blown crisis. This wasn’t for no reason though. If they basically hadn’t done anything minus periods where they controlled both Houses, then people would have complained they weren’t doing anything. In hindsight, yes, agreed. Bad call. But, if I were to imagine a parallel reality where Biden just sat about saying ‘hey folks I’d love to help ya but I’m worried about expanding the Executive branch’s scope’ how is that playing? Supreme Court Justices hanging on like limpets to both office and indeed life, that was an appalling call. Not in mere hindsight, but very apparent with foresight as well. Agreed on a lot of the bolded, although only up to a certain point. There are parties all over the shop that do, or have offered the kind of platforms that people think the Dems could prosper with, and in many locales they’re still getting rejected as well. Perhaps we’re doomed to exist in Clown World for a while until hopefully there’s some collective flip away from it. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
On February 27 2025 05:43 WombaT wrote: This wasn’t for no reason though. If they basically hadn’t done anything minus periods where they controlled both Houses, then people would have complained they weren’t doing anything. In hindsight, yes, agreed. Bad call. But, if I were to imagine a parallel reality where Biden just sat about saying ‘hey folks I’d love to help ya but I’m worried about expanding the Executive branch’s scope’ how is that playing? Supreme Court Justices hanging on like limpets to both office and indeed life, that was an appalling call. Not in mere hindsight, but very apparent with foresight as well. Agreed on a lot of the bolded, although only up to a certain point. There are parties all over the shop that do, or have offered the kind of platforms that people think the Dems could prosper with, and in many locales they’re still getting rejected as well. Perhaps we’re doomed to exist in Clown World for a while until hopefully there’s some collective flip away from it. So instead of Democrats doing nothing but limiting the power of the Executive Branch to usurp the entire government we got Democrats doing very little while not rolling back the Republican power grabs of Donald Trump and W. Bush. I'm not giving the Democrats a pass because "oh the optics would have looked bad" if they had rolled back Trump's power grabs and limited Biden's ability to pass policy. January 6th should have been the wake up call to those that weren't already aware of what the stakes were going to be in the next election cycle. They didn't pull the rug out from underneath the Presidency because they didn't think they'd have to worry about losing to him again because they didn't learn their lesson from 2016 and underestimated again just how dangerous of a political opponent he is. It's just like the Gerrymandering argument all over again. Democrats keep getting fucked over by red state Gerrymandering, but won't take the steps needed to get rid of it because they don't want to give up THEIR ability to abuse it. If the Democrats aren't going to be as willing to abuse these powers as the Republicans are then they need to get rid of them. They are too dangerous to be left on the table for the crazies to abuse. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21609 Posts
And what power that the executive shouldn't have is currently being abused? A lot of the expansion of perceived power from the executive just comes from Congress not bothering to do its job, that would be no different now. This Congress is going to let Trump, mostly, do what he wants. And Trump is already ignoring judicial orders, so again. What are you going to limit and what can you actually make stick in any capacity? The US has (some) checks and balances, but they assume Congress, Judicial, law enforcement and departments are somewhat doing "the right thing". When all 3 branches say "fuck it" there isn't a lot of limiting of power that actually works. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
On February 27 2025 07:09 Gorsameth wrote: How do you limit the power of the executive that cannot just be undone by the next President? And what power that the executive shouldn't have is currently being abused? A lot of the expansion of perceived power from the executive just comes from Congress not bothering to do its job, that would be no different now. This Congress is going to let Trump, mostly, do what he wants. And Trump is already ignoring judicial orders, so again. What are you going to limit and what can you actually make stick in any capacity? The US has (some) checks and balances, but they assume Congress, Judicial, law enforcement and departments are somewhat doing "the right thing". When all 3 branches say "fuck it" there isn't a lot of limiting of power that actually works. Pass legislation that increases congressional oversight over Federal agencies. Don't allow Presidential appointed heads to run wild in the federal government with no oversight. You really think the Republicans would have voted against this while a sitting Democrat like Obama is in office? Curb the power of presidential pardon. Don't get me fucking started on this one, we've known this power has been bullshit since Ford pardoned Nixon but neither party has done anything about it. Those are the two that immediately stick out other than Gerrymandering that we've known about for decades. Congress passed the War Powers act in 1979 as a direct response to Nixon in Vietnam and Cambodia/Laos. We know they are capable of checking the power of the President they just haven't been doing that at all for the last 40 years. Republicans obviously block Democrat attempts to weaken the Presidency when a Republican is in office, but the Democrats stop trying when one of theirs has the White House. | ||
KwarK
United States42487 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
21964 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21609 Posts
On February 27 2025 07:26 Vindicare605 wrote: Because a Republican controlled Congress is going to stop Trump? Really?Pass legislation that increases congressional oversight over Federal agencies. Don't allow Presidential appointed heads to run wild in the federal government with no oversight. You really think the Republicans would have voted against this while a sitting Democrat like Obama is in office? Curb the power of presidential pardon. Don't get me fucking started on this one, we've known this power has been bullshit since Ford pardoned Nixon but neither party has done anything about it. Those are the two that immediately stick out other than Gerrymandering that we've known about for decades. Congress passed the War Powers act in 1979 as a direct response to Nixon in Vietnam and Cambodia/Laos. We know they are capable of checking the power of the President they just haven't been doing that at all for the last 40 years. Republicans obviously block Democrat attempts to weaken the Presidency when a Republican is in office, but the Democrats stop trying when one of theirs has the White House. Your seeing the current Congress and how they are kissing the ring and think they would keep Trump in check? Congress already can do a lot of keep Trump appointees from running wild, they are letting him. Also Trump learned last term that Congress doesn't actually control the heads of departments. Technically they have to approve new heads but he learned if you sack the current head he gets to appoint an interim head who will do what he wants, and then you just never put forth a new department head for Congressional approval. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23105 Posts
On February 27 2025 08:17 Gorsameth wrote: Because a Republican controlled Congress is going to stop Trump? Really? Your seeing the current Congress and how they are kissing the ring and think they would keep Trump in check? Congress already can do a lot of keep Trump appointees from running wild, they are letting him. Also Trump learned last term that Congress doesn't actually control the heads of departments. Technically they have to approve new heads but he learned if you sack the current head he gets to appoint an interim head who will do what he wants, and then you just never put forth a new department head for Congressional approval. LibHorizons: Are you recommending anything or just insisting that Trump is King now and every alternative is hopeless? | ||
|
Billyboy
854 Posts
On February 27 2025 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote: LibHorizons: Are you recommending anything or just insisting that Trump is King now and every alternative is hopeless? The third person stuff is cringe, they 4th person stuff is super cringe, especially when you agree with your other personality. But what is even the purpose? Could not have you just said this post? What about it is Lib and not green? I have to admit I have not read most of these cos playing posts but can you at least only use it when you are not just talking like normal? It is really really bad. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
On February 27 2025 08:17 Gorsameth wrote: Because a Republican controlled Congress is going to stop Trump? Really? Your seeing the current Congress and how they are kissing the ring and think they would keep Trump in check? Congress already can do a lot of keep Trump appointees from running wild, they are letting him. Also Trump learned last term that Congress doesn't actually control the heads of departments. Technically they have to approve new heads but he learned if you sack the current head he gets to appoint an interim head who will do what he wants, and then you just never put forth a new department head for Congressional approval. You came into this conversation late. I'm talking about how we got here. It's been an ongoing process that's taken decades of complacency from Moderates and Liberals in Congress as well as a whole lot of corruption that's just been getting worse and worse over time. This didn't happen in one election cycle because of the price of eggs. Like I've been saying since Trump was first elected. Trump is not the problem. Trump is a symptom of a much larger, and systemic problem. One the entire country needs to wake up to. Do I expect anyone to stand up to Trump in the next 4 years? No I don't. It's too late for that. We never should have gotten to this point in the first place and we never would have if Democrats would have had the guts to weaken the power of their own sitting Presidents instead of letting them keep or expand the power grabs the Republicans have made every time they've had the White House since Reagan. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5500 Posts
On February 27 2025 08:17 Gorsameth wrote: Because a Republican controlled Congress is going to stop Trump? Really? Your seeing the current Congress and how they are kissing the ring and think they would keep Trump in check? Congress already can do a lot of keep Trump appointees from running wild, they are letting him. Also Trump learned last term that Congress doesn't actually control the heads of departments. Technically they have to approve new heads but he learned if you sack the current head he gets to appoint an interim head who will do what he wants, and then you just never put forth a new department head for Congressional approval. Congress is not supposed to "control" the heads of departments, their role is advice and oversight; nevertheless interim/acting heads do not have unlimited terms and serving on a permanent basis always requires Congressional approval. The reason you can have interim heads is that even if Congress is being intentionally politicized and dense, like not even voting for members of their own party, that it doesn't cause a top-down stalling of department business from leadership roles being empty. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
OSC
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
SOOP
Cure vs Zoun
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
SOOP Global
Future vs MaNa
Harstem vs Cham
BSL: ProLeague
Sziky vs JDConan
Cross vs MadiNho
Hawk vs Bonyth
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
