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 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
LibHorizons: There really isn't much engagement or disagreement that isn't in some capacity about how bad and stupid Republicans/their supporters are. My point wasn't that though. It was that people claiming to want Democrats to do/be better and/or to oppose Trump aren't actually doing the bare minimum work required in a democracy for that to happen. Therefore, they can't be taken as being sincere in that expression.
2. Trump taking office required decades of bipartisan collaboration in empowering people like Trump. How to avoid it in Europe and what we can all do about it now is what I think we should be discussing. That it'll be hard is a given.
We can and should mention all the stuff done to let Trump in, but that's decades of bipartisan empowerment of people like Trump through third way neoliberalism (and literally helping to make him the nominee). If we do that, we can actually advance our understanding of the issues at hand and develop our plans to address them effectively.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
Agreed on both boxes. I must also say that i apparently missed whenever GH started doing the LibHorizons thing, so i don't really get what that is about and mostly ignored it. Is it GH roleplaying as a Democrat?
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
Tbf, other than DPB and Kwark, most of the people who are on your side are on the other side of the pond and have no real clout with the Democratic party or any other parts of US politics. But if you pick a day we can go to our local US consulates and throw eggs at them or something.
LibHorizons: This is just a strawman copout with a twist of smartassery.
You're all perfectly capable of contributing to discussion on how people in the US can best organize to impede the Trump admin's agenda, rally opposing forces, take power, and use that power to implement the policies we developed together for all of our mutual benefit.
It's just more fun/way easier most of the time to "pwn the MAGAts", local or otherwise, so you all do that instead.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
Tbf, other than DPB and Kwark, most of the people who are on your side are on the other side of the pond and have no real clout with the Democratic party or any other parts of US politics. But if you pick a day we can go to our local US consulates and throw eggs at them or something.
I also have no clout with the Democratic Party. GH routinely accuses me of being in charge of them but I’m actually a registered Republican and have a lot of disagreement with them, particularly over how they’ve dealt with the rise of populism. My argument has always been that the absolute bare minimum obligation we owe to each other is to vote against Trump whenever possible.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
Tbf, other than DPB and Kwark, most of the people who are on your side are on the other side of the pond and have no real clout with the Democratic party or any other parts of US politics. But if you pick a day we can go to our local US consulates and throw eggs at them or something.
I also have no clout with the Democratic Party. GH routinely accuses me of being in charge of them but I’m actually a registered Republican and have a lot of disagreement with them, particularly over how they’ve dealt with the rise of populism. My argument has always been that the absolute bare minimum obligation we owe to each other is to vote against Trump whenever possible.
I have no clout with the Democratic Party either, although I do indeed live in the United States.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
Tbf, other than DPB and Kwark, most of the people who are on your side are on the other side of the pond and have no real clout with the Democratic party or any other parts of US politics. But if you pick a day we can go to our local US consulates and throw eggs at them or something.
I also have no clout with the Democratic Party. GH routinely accuses me of being in charge of them but I’m actually a registered Republican and have a lot of disagreement with them, particularly over how they’ve dealt with the rise of populism. My argument has always been that the absolute bare minimum obligation we owe to each other is to vote against Trump whenever possible.
I have no clout with the Democratic Party either, although I do indeed live in the United States.
LibHorizons: You both have more clout in the Democratic party than you do in national elections voting against Trump. That's without even showing up to the meetings. Democrats are presumably part of the coalition I'm describing but they aren't the entirety or owners of it.
You guys are just engaging in defeatism masquerading as pragmatism.
I also have no clout with the democratic party because the democratic party doesn't exist in Minnesota. Third parties existing within the democratic party is something that only Minnesotans get to have though so you're all screwed.
Its incredible that GH thinks even his roleplay liberal is even a superior being than any other liberal. Valuing your moral high ground over getting anything done is a hell of a drug. Its really rich to accuse others in engaging in defeatism instead of pragmatism when his strategy to get change is to literaly be defeated until a better option arrives.
On March 01 2025 02:18 WombaT wrote: How did ‘we can’t vote for Biden/Harris because they’re for genocide’ go?
It got him the moral high ground, which will mean a lot to the people who will now suffer because trump got elected instead of harris.
On March 01 2025 02:18 WombaT wrote: How did ‘we can’t vote for Biden/Harris because they’re for genocide’ go?
LibHorizons: I begrudgingly voted for Harris despite many of her positions, her support for genocide included. If somebody wants to argue that makes me complicit, I can't really disagree. I'd have to argue it was the best option available to me. Which gets a bit complicated for me to do given the particulars of the US electoral system, but I will if I must.
For those that couldn't/wouldn't do the same. I understand much of their frustrations and want to incorporate them as much as we reasonably can going forward. That's going to require compromises from all of us along with some clear goals/policies we can all organize around accomplishing with a deliberate and executable plan.
While our international contributors have obvious limitations (but less than they may think in some cases), this is something all of us can and should work on/toward. The Democratic party will presumably play a role in all this, but one doesn't have to be a meeting attending member to participate in what I'm advocating. Granted, if a person is a US voter they should probably be attending political meetings of some sort, as that's how democracy functions.
On March 01 2025 03:16 Laurens wrote: What on earth was that interview/press conference.
Which one? There have been so many ridiculous ones.
Apparently Trump and Vance got into a shouting match with Zelensky because he wasn't sucking their dicks hard eough.
Probably also fed by negative reporting on Trump from recent high profile visits so they decided to punch down on Zelensky because the oval office is now more like a kinder garden playground.
Well, if Trump was looking for a way to widen the chasm forming between Europe and the US, he managed. And for the record, I don't believe for a second Vance just "butted in there" without agreeing with Trump beforehand that he was going to play bad cop to harass Zelenskyy. That was some of the most bad faith arguing I've seen in a long time, and I've read oBlade's posts in this thread.
EPT
