|
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 |
On March 05 2025 02:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:05 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 00:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 00:08 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 00:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
[quote]
Trudeau bowed out because his approval rating was 20%. He won't open parliament because it will trigger an election. Trudeau has crippled Canada.
The polls in Canada changed substantially right after Trudeau resigned. I'd say the "political sphere" changed more because Trudeau quit than anything Trump has done. Trump has done a lot though. + Show Spoiler +These are things you should take note of from your last post and the questions you asked in it.
What happened right after Trudeau resigned? Its pretty funny to see GH criticize dems/libs for not doing work when him and other socialists can't even get out and vote to stop Trump. Until the day comes when he recognizes that he has agency and is responsible for the consequences of his actions, I'm not going to accept criticism from those that actively help the harm from the right. LibHorzions: I voted for Harris bruh. It's also pretty stupid to let GH's posts prevent you from doing the work we all know needs to be done. I believe you can be better than that. I don't know If I need to be the one to tell you but that means to GH that you're a genocide supporter and actively support what happens in Palestine. He is the one on the moral high ground that told us that Harris didn't need to win and that it wasn't important enough to vote for her to prevent Trump from doing what you are trying to "convince" others to work to prevent. Theres no evidence to support his standards when by his reputation he's not going to support you libhorizons in anything you do or attempt to do. Trying to preform for him and sharing what work you do in your community is meaningless when he will find some other hill to die on in the next election as he actively tries to sabatoge your efforts in order to help republicans get elected again. LibHorizons: Obviously not, the linked post in the post your responding to said so. 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 understand GH's frustrations and would hope we could find mutual goals to align on accomplishing for our shared benefit. I also understand your frustrations with GH's refusal to be complicit in genocide and would expect that not to stop you from working to find mutual goals with other libs/Dems/ilk to align on accomplishing for our shared benefit. I don't see what mutual goals we can align on accomplishing though. We've seen from GH and his ilk that he's not wiling to compromise or work with a anyone else to find mutual goals. + Show Spoiler +He has shown a vast disregard on approaching any sort of realignment from his side and refuses to show any responsibility for his actions. Community and coalitions are built on trust and he has shown repeatedly he can't be trusted. If he wants to start rebuilding that trust we are going to need to see some effort or evidence from him that he's willing to work with other libs. Agnowedging that you are complicit with genocide and refusing to remove your support after agnowedging that shows you are willing to support genocide.
To put it simply, I can't work with genocide supporters and I'm wondering why you believe GH would do so? From his perspective you Libhorizons are a genocide supporter and by aligning with you that makes him a genocide supporter does it not? LibHorizons: Setting your beef with GH aside, we both want Democrats to win the House next year, right? I don't have a Beef with GH I'm asking if you're willing to work with Genocide supporters. If GH believes you are complicit in genocide then him aligning himself with you without movement on that issue from either side means that he supports genocide. Theres no movement from me on creating a community with or a coalition with genocide supporters and If support for the democratic party means support for genocide then I don't support the democratic party and I don't want them to win. Luckily we are both smarter then that and don't support genocide and don't believe that the democratic party supports genocide right? LibHorizons: That's incoherent and unproductive to me. I'm not interested in whatever point it is you're trying to make about GH. We both want Democrats to win the House next year, right? A simple yes or no is sufficient. Your opening ideas on how you think we can work toward that would be even better. You could also compare and contrast the ideas I've shared with whatever ones you have kicking around your head. My point isn't about GH my point is about you and the question you're asking me. + Show Spoiler +You want to work to form a community with others and share interests, and align with them to help democrats win the house next year. I need to clarify with you what that means, and if that means support for genocide or not.
Libhorizons: Are you willing to work with genocide supporters? I can't work towards forming a community with or a coalition with genocide supporters and if your question to me is if I want a party that supports genocide to win the answer is no. I don't believe that the democratic party is a party that supports genocide but you need to first understand that the people GH represents believe that you support genocide, and regardless if you believe that or not you need to reconcile that their support with you will mean in their opinion, that they are supporting genocide.
To assume good faith with GH in his attempts to form a coalition and community with dems/libs/ilk means to assume in good faith that he now either supports genocide or that he doesn't believe that libs/dems/ilk supports genocide. LibHorizons: I honestly don't know what you're trying to say and your repeated references to GH make it seem like it is about GH. You could attempt to make your point/ask your question without referencing GH and that might help, but I doubt it. I already explained how I felt about the critique about complicity in genocide and working together moving forward.
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.
Did you have any ideas you wanted to offer/discuss? If not, I think we're done for now.
|
Northern Ireland23843 Posts
On March 05 2025 02:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the TSX lost 2% of its value in an hour. It is still going down hard. All that money is coming home to the US of by God A. No, it’s value being destroyed. Trade makes both sides richer. That’s why they do it. Stopping trade doesn’t have a winner and loser, just losers. But you’d know this if you took a minute to look at the US indices since the trade war shit started and specifically today. It’s not money coming home, it’s a valuation that was predicated on higher levels of profitability getting revised downwards due to sabotage.
Ok but have you considered the time I taught a group of Italian Americans to play street hockey in 1992? They even called me ‘little Giacamo’!
|
Trump biggest enemy is Trump, but not sticking to his word is also mending that problem.
Or did Trump even tweet that 13 years ago?
Maybe FakeFakenews or Real Fake news.
|
On March 05 2025 02:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 01:54 WombaT wrote:On March 05 2025 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the TSX lost 2% of its value in an hour. It is still going down hard. All that money is coming home to the US of by God A. So are other stock markets. Because they’re reacting to a fucking fundamentally stupid idea. Hey we’ll see how it goes. if the idea is 'fundamentally stupid" there is no need to "see how it goes". i say, Trump is doing his "crazy man" schtick. Keep in mind Linda Mcmahon is his education secretary. Once Canada gets a PM willing to open parliament the negotiations will begin. There is no point in negotiating modifications to the USMCA with a Canadian PM who won't open parliament. LOL. Trump's end game is to have Canada pay higher tariffs than it has in decades while still giving the USA super easy access to Canada's energy resources. In the end, Canada will have the best access to the American consumer of any nation on earth. Trump and Trudeau bickered back and forth for 9 years. In the end, Trump crushed Trudeau.
Canada doesnt pay the tariffs. The US Citizens and companies do....
|
Welp, Zelenskyy want to negotiate with the USA again.
On March 05 2025 03:09 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 02:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 05 2025 01:54 WombaT wrote:On March 05 2025 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the TSX lost 2% of its value in an hour. It is still going down hard. All that money is coming home to the US of by God A. So are other stock markets. Because they’re reacting to a fucking fundamentally stupid idea. Hey we’ll see how it goes. if the idea is 'fundamentally stupid" there is no need to "see how it goes". i say, Trump is doing his "crazy man" schtick. Keep in mind Linda Mcmahon is his education secretary. Once Canada gets a PM willing to open parliament the negotiations will begin. There is no point in negotiating modifications to the USMCA with a Canadian PM who won't open parliament. LOL. Trump's end game is to have Canada pay higher tariffs than it has in decades while still giving the USA super easy access to Canada's energy resources. In the end, Canada will have the best access to the American consumer of any nation on earth. Trump and Trudeau bickered back and forth for 9 years. In the end, Trump crushed Trudeau. Canada doesnt pay the tariffs. The US Citizens and companies do....
True. Canada is impacted by US companies and consumers purchasing less of their products.
|
On March 05 2025 03:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, Zelenskyy want to negotiate with the USA again. Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 03:09 Sadist wrote:On March 05 2025 02:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 05 2025 01:54 WombaT wrote:On March 05 2025 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the TSX lost 2% of its value in an hour. It is still going down hard. All that money is coming home to the US of by God A. So are other stock markets. Because they’re reacting to a fucking fundamentally stupid idea. Hey we’ll see how it goes. if the idea is 'fundamentally stupid" there is no need to "see how it goes". i say, Trump is doing his "crazy man" schtick. Keep in mind Linda Mcmahon is his education secretary. Once Canada gets a PM willing to open parliament the negotiations will begin. There is no point in negotiating modifications to the USMCA with a Canadian PM who won't open parliament. LOL. Trump's end game is to have Canada pay higher tariffs than it has in decades while still giving the USA super easy access to Canada's energy resources. In the end, Canada will have the best access to the American consumer of any nation on earth. Trump and Trudeau bickered back and forth for 9 years. In the end, Trump crushed Trudeau. Canada doesnt pay the tariffs. The US Citizens and companies do.... True. Canada is impacted by US companies and consumers purchasing less of their products.
And that's why blindly forcing tariffs without a very, very specific reason creates a lose-lose situation financially, to say nothing of the souring of relationships and potential escalation into retaliatory tariffs and possibly even a trade war.
|
On March 05 2025 03:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, Zelenskyy want to negotiate with the USA again. Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 03:09 Sadist wrote:On March 05 2025 02:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 05 2025 01:54 WombaT wrote:On March 05 2025 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the TSX lost 2% of its value in an hour. It is still going down hard. All that money is coming home to the US of by God A. So are other stock markets. Because they’re reacting to a fucking fundamentally stupid idea. Hey we’ll see how it goes. if the idea is 'fundamentally stupid" there is no need to "see how it goes". i say, Trump is doing his "crazy man" schtick. Keep in mind Linda Mcmahon is his education secretary. Once Canada gets a PM willing to open parliament the negotiations will begin. There is no point in negotiating modifications to the USMCA with a Canadian PM who won't open parliament. LOL. Trump's end game is to have Canada pay higher tariffs than it has in decades while still giving the USA super easy access to Canada's energy resources. In the end, Canada will have the best access to the American consumer of any nation on earth. Trump and Trudeau bickered back and forth for 9 years. In the end, Trump crushed Trudeau. Canada doesnt pay the tariffs. The US Citizens and companies do.... True. Canada is impacted by US companies and consumers purchasing less of their products.
And one assumes, previously the US companies were buying the Canadian products because that was a good deal for them. So them not buying them would be a bad thing for those companies. And, without any other gain, the US economy.
|
You're assuming our Trump clowns are arguing in good faith. They're not.
|
On March 05 2025 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 02:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:05 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 00:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 00:08 Sermokala wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +These are things you should take note of from your last post and the questions you asked in it.
What happened right after Trudeau resigned? Its pretty funny to see GH criticize dems/libs for not doing work when him and other socialists can't even get out and vote to stop Trump. Until the day comes when he recognizes that he has agency and is responsible for the consequences of his actions, I'm not going to accept criticism from those that actively help the harm from the right. LibHorzions: I voted for Harris bruh. It's also pretty stupid to let GH's posts prevent you from doing the work we all know needs to be done. I believe you can be better than that. I don't know If I need to be the one to tell you but that means to GH that you're a genocide supporter and actively support what happens in Palestine. He is the one on the moral high ground that told us that Harris didn't need to win and that it wasn't important enough to vote for her to prevent Trump from doing what you are trying to "convince" others to work to prevent. Theres no evidence to support his standards when by his reputation he's not going to support you libhorizons in anything you do or attempt to do. Trying to preform for him and sharing what work you do in your community is meaningless when he will find some other hill to die on in the next election as he actively tries to sabatoge your efforts in order to help republicans get elected again. LibHorizons: Obviously not, the linked post in the post your responding to said so. 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 understand GH's frustrations and would hope we could find mutual goals to align on accomplishing for our shared benefit. I also understand your frustrations with GH's refusal to be complicit in genocide and would expect that not to stop you from working to find mutual goals with other libs/Dems/ilk to align on accomplishing for our shared benefit. I don't see what mutual goals we can align on accomplishing though. We've seen from GH and his ilk that he's not wiling to compromise or work with a anyone else to find mutual goals. + Show Spoiler +He has shown a vast disregard on approaching any sort of realignment from his side and refuses to show any responsibility for his actions. Community and coalitions are built on trust and he has shown repeatedly he can't be trusted. If he wants to start rebuilding that trust we are going to need to see some effort or evidence from him that he's willing to work with other libs. Agnowedging that you are complicit with genocide and refusing to remove your support after agnowedging that shows you are willing to support genocide.
To put it simply, I can't work with genocide supporters and I'm wondering why you believe GH would do so? From his perspective you Libhorizons are a genocide supporter and by aligning with you that makes him a genocide supporter does it not? LibHorizons: Setting your beef with GH aside, we both want Democrats to win the House next year, right? I don't have a Beef with GH I'm asking if you're willing to work with Genocide supporters. If GH believes you are complicit in genocide then him aligning himself with you without movement on that issue from either side means that he supports genocide. Theres no movement from me on creating a community with or a coalition with genocide supporters and If support for the democratic party means support for genocide then I don't support the democratic party and I don't want them to win. Luckily we are both smarter then that and don't support genocide and don't believe that the democratic party supports genocide right? LibHorizons: That's incoherent and unproductive to me. I'm not interested in whatever point it is you're trying to make about GH. We both want Democrats to win the House next year, right? A simple yes or no is sufficient. Your opening ideas on how you think we can work toward that would be even better. You could also compare and contrast the ideas I've shared with whatever ones you have kicking around your head. My point isn't about GH my point is about you and the question you're asking me. + Show Spoiler +You want to work to form a community with others and share interests, and align with them to help democrats win the house next year. I need to clarify with you what that means, and if that means support for genocide or not.
Libhorizons: Are you willing to work with genocide supporters? I can't work towards forming a community with or a coalition with genocide supporters and if your question to me is if I want a party that supports genocide to win the answer is no. I don't believe that the democratic party is a party that supports genocide but you need to first understand that the people GH represents believe that you support genocide, and regardless if you believe that or not you need to reconcile that their support with you will mean in their opinion, that they are supporting genocide.
To assume good faith with GH in his attempts to form a coalition and community with dems/libs/ilk means to assume in good faith that he now either supports genocide or that he doesn't believe that libs/dems/ilk supports genocide. LibHorizons: I honestly don't know what you're trying to say and your repeated references to GH make it seem like it is about GH. You could attempt to make your point/ask your question without referencing GH and that might help, but I doubt it. I already explained how I felt about the critique about complicity in genocide and working together moving forward. Show nested quote +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. Did you have any ideas you wanted to offer/discuss? If not, I think we're done for now.
I read that but there's a very simple issue with what you're trying to do. If you say "compromises from all of us" that needs to include the types that accused Libs like you Libhorizons of being genocide supporters. Are you aware of any movement on that issue? From what we were told by those types it was the sole reason they were happy to not vote for Kamala and worked the best they could to convince others to not vote for Kamala. Many people were convinced that Trump was going to be better for the middle east, especially those of arab and Muslim demographics.
I'm not a genocide supporter, and I can't work with genocide supporters, and I've very clearly shown that if someone is not willing to move from the position that they think I'm a genocide supporter yet wants to work with me, that makes them a genocide supporter.
We can't work to a path to victory without trust and healing from the last election. If there is no interest for that to happen I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish.
|
On March 05 2025 02:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 02:13 KwarK wrote:On March 05 2025 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the TSX lost 2% of its value in an hour. It is still going down hard. All that money is coming home to the US of by God A. No, it’s value being destroyed. Trade makes both sides richer. That’s why they do it. Stopping trade doesn’t have a winner and loser, just losers. But you’d know this if you took a minute to look at the US indices since the trade war shit started and specifically today. It’s not money coming home, it’s a valuation that was predicated on higher levels of profitability getting revised downwards due to sabotage. Ok but have you considered the time I taught a group of Italian Americans to play street hockey in 1992? They even called me ‘little Giacamo’!
Any JimmyJ post is not complete without an off-topic reference to Reagan firing the airtraffic controllers, some mention of the WWE, and a random clip of Seinfeld.
|
On March 05 2025 04:06 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 02:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:05 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 00:19 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] LibHorzions: I voted for Harris bruh. It's also pretty stupid to let GH's posts prevent you from doing the work we all know needs to be done. I believe you can be better than that. I don't know If I need to be the one to tell you but that means to GH that you're a genocide supporter and actively support what happens in Palestine. He is the one on the moral high ground that told us that Harris didn't need to win and that it wasn't important enough to vote for her to prevent Trump from doing what you are trying to "convince" others to work to prevent. Theres no evidence to support his standards when by his reputation he's not going to support you libhorizons in anything you do or attempt to do. Trying to preform for him and sharing what work you do in your community is meaningless when he will find some other hill to die on in the next election as he actively tries to sabatoge your efforts in order to help republicans get elected again. LibHorizons: Obviously not, the linked post in the post your responding to said so. 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 understand GH's frustrations and would hope we could find mutual goals to align on accomplishing for our shared benefit. I also understand your frustrations with GH's refusal to be complicit in genocide and would expect that not to stop you from working to find mutual goals with other libs/Dems/ilk to align on accomplishing for our shared benefit. I don't see what mutual goals we can align on accomplishing though. We've seen from GH and his ilk that he's not wiling to compromise or work with a anyone else to find mutual goals. + Show Spoiler +He has shown a vast disregard on approaching any sort of realignment from his side and refuses to show any responsibility for his actions. Community and coalitions are built on trust and he has shown repeatedly he can't be trusted. If he wants to start rebuilding that trust we are going to need to see some effort or evidence from him that he's willing to work with other libs. Agnowedging that you are complicit with genocide and refusing to remove your support after agnowedging that shows you are willing to support genocide.
To put it simply, I can't work with genocide supporters and I'm wondering why you believe GH would do so? From his perspective you Libhorizons are a genocide supporter and by aligning with you that makes him a genocide supporter does it not? LibHorizons: Setting your beef with GH aside, we both want Democrats to win the House next year, right? I don't have a Beef with GH I'm asking if you're willing to work with Genocide supporters. If GH believes you are complicit in genocide then him aligning himself with you without movement on that issue from either side means that he supports genocide. Theres no movement from me on creating a community with or a coalition with genocide supporters and If support for the democratic party means support for genocide then I don't support the democratic party and I don't want them to win. Luckily we are both smarter then that and don't support genocide and don't believe that the democratic party supports genocide right? LibHorizons: That's incoherent and unproductive to me. I'm not interested in whatever point it is you're trying to make about GH. We both want Democrats to win the House next year, right? A simple yes or no is sufficient. Your opening ideas on how you think we can work toward that would be even better. You could also compare and contrast the ideas I've shared with whatever ones you have kicking around your head. My point isn't about GH my point is about you and the question you're asking me. + Show Spoiler +You want to work to form a community with others and share interests, and align with them to help democrats win the house next year. I need to clarify with you what that means, and if that means support for genocide or not.
Libhorizons: Are you willing to work with genocide supporters? I can't work towards forming a community with or a coalition with genocide supporters and if your question to me is if I want a party that supports genocide to win the answer is no. I don't believe that the democratic party is a party that supports genocide but you need to first understand that the people GH represents believe that you support genocide, and regardless if you believe that or not you need to reconcile that their support with you will mean in their opinion, that they are supporting genocide.
To assume good faith with GH in his attempts to form a coalition and community with dems/libs/ilk means to assume in good faith that he now either supports genocide or that he doesn't believe that libs/dems/ilk supports genocide. LibHorizons: I honestly don't know what you're trying to say and your repeated references to GH make it seem like it is about GH. You could attempt to make your point/ask your question without referencing GH and that might help, but I doubt it. I already explained how I felt about the critique about complicity in genocide and working together moving forward. 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. Did you have any ideas you wanted to offer/discuss? If not, I think we're done for now. I read that but there's a very simple issue with what you're trying to do. If you say "compromises from all of us" that needs to include the types that accused Libs like you Libhorizons of being genocide supporters. + Show Spoiler + Are you aware of any movement on that issue? From what we were told by those types it was the sole reason they were happy to not vote for Kamala and worked the best they could to convince others to not vote for Kamala. Many people were convinced that Trump was going to be better for the middle east, especially those of arab and Muslim demographics.
I'm not a genocide supporter, and I can't work with genocide supporters, and I've very clearly shown that if someone is not willing to move from the position that they think I'm a genocide supporter yet wants to work with me, that makes them a genocide supporter.
We can't work to a path to victory without trust and healing from the last election. If there is no interest for that to happen I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish. LibHorizons: Alright. No ideas. We are done here until you do.
We have no time for you to waste with this line of engagement. Don't work with them then, whatever that means.
People that actually want to impede the march of fascism in the US and beyond have to focus on winning the elections next year while making sure the candidates that do can adequately stand up to the Trump/Musk administration.
If any lib/Dem/ilk has anything better than I'm putting forward thus far (it doesn't have to be yours, it can come from wherever), we needed to hear/see it weeks ago, but the next best time is now. All the libs/Dems/ilk that don't can shut up and fall in line supporting something along the lines of what I'm saying imo.
|
Northern Ireland23843 Posts
On March 05 2025 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2025 04:06 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 02:14 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:35 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2025 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2025 01:05 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I don't know If I need to be the one to tell you but that means to GH that you're a genocide supporter and actively support what happens in Palestine. He is the one on the moral high ground that told us that Harris didn't need to win and that it wasn't important enough to vote for her to prevent Trump from doing what you are trying to "convince" others to work to prevent. Theres no evidence to support his standards when by his reputation he's not going to support you libhorizons in anything you do or attempt to do. Trying to preform for him and sharing what work you do in your community is meaningless when he will find some other hill to die on in the next election as he actively tries to sabatoge your efforts in order to help republicans get elected again.
LibHorizons: Obviously not, the linked post in the post your responding to said so. 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 understand GH's frustrations and would hope we could find mutual goals to align on accomplishing for our shared benefit. I also understand your frustrations with GH's refusal to be complicit in genocide and would expect that not to stop you from working to find mutual goals with other libs/Dems/ilk to align on accomplishing for our shared benefit. I don't see what mutual goals we can align on accomplishing though. We've seen from GH and his ilk that he's not wiling to compromise or work with a anyone else to find mutual goals. + Show Spoiler +He has shown a vast disregard on approaching any sort of realignment from his side and refuses to show any responsibility for his actions. Community and coalitions are built on trust and he has shown repeatedly he can't be trusted. If he wants to start rebuilding that trust we are going to need to see some effort or evidence from him that he's willing to work with other libs. Agnowedging that you are complicit with genocide and refusing to remove your support after agnowedging that shows you are willing to support genocide.
To put it simply, I can't work with genocide supporters and I'm wondering why you believe GH would do so? From his perspective you Libhorizons are a genocide supporter and by aligning with you that makes him a genocide supporter does it not? LibHorizons: Setting your beef with GH aside, we both want Democrats to win the House next year, right? I don't have a Beef with GH I'm asking if you're willing to work with Genocide supporters. If GH believes you are complicit in genocide then him aligning himself with you without movement on that issue from either side means that he supports genocide. Theres no movement from me on creating a community with or a coalition with genocide supporters and If support for the democratic party means support for genocide then I don't support the democratic party and I don't want them to win. Luckily we are both smarter then that and don't support genocide and don't believe that the democratic party supports genocide right? LibHorizons: That's incoherent and unproductive to me. I'm not interested in whatever point it is you're trying to make about GH. We both want Democrats to win the House next year, right? A simple yes or no is sufficient. Your opening ideas on how you think we can work toward that would be even better. You could also compare and contrast the ideas I've shared with whatever ones you have kicking around your head. My point isn't about GH my point is about you and the question you're asking me. + Show Spoiler +You want to work to form a community with others and share interests, and align with them to help democrats win the house next year. I need to clarify with you what that means, and if that means support for genocide or not.
Libhorizons: Are you willing to work with genocide supporters? I can't work towards forming a community with or a coalition with genocide supporters and if your question to me is if I want a party that supports genocide to win the answer is no. I don't believe that the democratic party is a party that supports genocide but you need to first understand that the people GH represents believe that you support genocide, and regardless if you believe that or not you need to reconcile that their support with you will mean in their opinion, that they are supporting genocide.
To assume good faith with GH in his attempts to form a coalition and community with dems/libs/ilk means to assume in good faith that he now either supports genocide or that he doesn't believe that libs/dems/ilk supports genocide. LibHorizons: I honestly don't know what you're trying to say and your repeated references to GH make it seem like it is about GH. You could attempt to make your point/ask your question without referencing GH and that might help, but I doubt it. I already explained how I felt about the critique about complicity in genocide and working together moving forward. 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. Did you have any ideas you wanted to offer/discuss? If not, I think we're done for now. I read that but there's a very simple issue with what you're trying to do. If you say "compromises from all of us" that needs to include the types that accused Libs like you Libhorizons of being genocide supporters. + Show Spoiler + Are you aware of any movement on that issue? From what we were told by those types it was the sole reason they were happy to not vote for Kamala and worked the best they could to convince others to not vote for Kamala. Many people were convinced that Trump was going to be better for the middle east, especially those of arab and Muslim demographics.
I'm not a genocide supporter, and I can't work with genocide supporters, and I've very clearly shown that if someone is not willing to move from the position that they think I'm a genocide supporter yet wants to work with me, that makes them a genocide supporter.
We can't work to a path to victory without trust and healing from the last election. If there is no interest for that to happen I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish. LibHorizons: Alright. No ideas. We are done here until you do. We have no time for you to waste with this line of engagement. Don't work with them then, whatever that means. People that actually want to impede the march of fascism in the US and beyond have to focus on winning the elections next year while making sure the candidates that do can adequately stand up to the Trump/Musk administration. If any lib/Dem/ilk has anything better than I'm putting forward thus far (it doesn't have to be yours, it can come from wherever), we needed to hear/see it weeks ago, but the next best time is now. All the libs/Dems/ilk that don't can shut up and fall in line supporting something along the lines of what I'm saying imo.
A reasonable program.
Would you stand alongside folks who broadly support US policy towards Israel/Palestine to get it done?
I think it’s a perfectly fair question.
|
On March 05 2025 03:47 maybenexttime wrote:
You're assuming our Trump clowns are arguing in good faith. They're not.
I hover back and forth on whether or not Jimmy argues in good faith. Seeing the content he posts, I sometimes think his brain actually believes this shit because he’s on a constant diet of Fox News, The Daily Wire, and Asmongold.
Maybe there will be a day where he understands Economics 101 and why Trump’s tariff sword have a handle and so he’s half swording the bastard but I don’t count on it any time soon.
|
I will say one thing about Trump. He's getting everyone fired up.
There is this hypothesis I have where people get a little easygoing, less aware, less educated when things are running too smoothly and have no clue how to crisis manage when shit does hit the fan. It seems like people have awoken from this kind of slumber due to the simple fact that Trump is throwing shit in everyone's fan at the same time. Maybe THAT is his actual 5d chess move. Legitimately my only way to put a positive spin on his behavior.
My actual take is that he's just senile and likes to strongarm everyone because he's the big boss and he makes the best (i.e. worst) deals.
|
United States41989 Posts
Trump’s negotiating strategy with Russia is weird.
The consensus for how to negotiate in a MAD scenario is that you must convince the other side that you’re an irrational actor. It’s be insane to risk Boston for Berlin, only a madman would prefer to annihilate everyone than make a small concession. It that gives the madman on the other side of the table all the power, you’ll give them the world piece by piece.
The optimal strategy is to pretend to be irrational. To walk into the room and declare that your maximalist goal is that everyone dies today but that they can talk you down from there. That nuclear hellfire sounds like a quick path to heaven for you and hell for the godless commies which you view as an absolute win. Then you respond to any threat with “fuck yeah, let’s fucking go”. Every Cold War president did this.
Trump has opted for an extremely sane approach in contrast to that. He walks into the room and declares “before we start I want to make it clear that under no circumstances will I risk WW3 for Ukraine so please communicate your red lines up front so I can stay well clear of them”. He gave away Crimea and the Donbas before negotiations started, insisting before the meeting that retaking Russian held territory wasn’t happening. He also declared, before negotiations began, that any kind of NATO style security agreement with Ukraine was off the table.
That somewhat caught the Russians off guard and they had to start scrambling to come up with some new demands. When negotiations started and Trump opened by letting them know that the most important thing for him was that a deal was struck and a ceasefire agreed so he was happy to do whatever was needed to make that happen. He wouldn’t walk away from the table without a deal. Then he gave away US aid. Then he gave recognition of Russia’s implicit sovereignty over the Baltic states and conceded that NATO shouldn’t have expanded there and that Russia had legitimate concerns. Then he agreed to abandon Europe. And then he agreed to pressure Ukraine to give up a lot of territory that Russia hasn’t conquered in exchange for Ukraine disarming.
Unfortunately Putin didn’t have time to make any concessions because Trump was too busy making them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://preview.redd.it/no-title-required-v0-w0y8byj8ipme1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=319e7d21ff44b5e6a4d140b609cfa9f2a0142bce)
