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 March 05 2025 06:07 KwarK wrote: 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. .
Right... and I'm sure everyone here would praise this "optimal strategy" if Trump threatened WW3 or nuclear holocaust...
On March 04 2025 22:26 KwarK wrote: I'll put some $ on American military activities in Mexico without the approval of the Mexican government before the end of the administration with you. Not sure why you think they'd be deliberately killing civilians, they're not the Russian army. You've straw manned my point quite a lot though when I think it'll follow the historical precedents of the Czechoslovakia or the Donbas. There will be a pretext, troops will be sent in to "restore order" or to "protect Americans" or to "defeat criminal elements". War won't be declared on Mexico (and hasn't been declared on Ukraine by Russia) but Mexico won't consent to the invasion and will register complaints with the UN etc.
It's just what these regimes do.
I was replying to the guy who said he thought the US would annex Mexican land.
The Mexican government wont approve anything that hurts the cartels, the socialist party is financed by the Sinaloa cartel, when the army captured El Chapo Jr, the president released him, when the US captured General Cienfuegos Mexican government asked the US to turn him over to get a trial in Mexico, they released him without any charges, now the US captured El Mayo Zambada and he sent a letter to the Mexican government that they either repatriate him to Mexico or that he will talk, since then the Mexican government is trying to rewrite the constitution in attempts to get him back to Mexico to release him at all costs.
So yeah you can be damn sure Mexico will oppose any military incursions against the cartels from the US with the excuse of sovereignity, so yeah the US sending troops and the narco-government of Mexico not liking it is very likely and I along with almost every other friend I have strongly support it.
But if you wanna bet, how about we bet on the US annexing Mexican territory, i'll give you 3 to 1 in your favor and as much money as you can bet as long as we escrow obv.
On March 04 2025 19:25 BlackJack wrote: It’s hard to tell how serious they are sometimes but if there were a betting market for the things they say I don’t think you would find anyone here to risk their money on it. So that leads me to believe that sharing their left-wing fan-fiction is more of a fun hobby as opposed to any serious beliefs.
Perhaps it's something we should pursue, lets monetize dumb opinions.
Not sure if Victor would appreciate that just a few weeks after I come back I become the unofficial tl.net bookie though lol
GH do you think libhorizons is a genocide supporter/complicit in genocide because he voted for Biden in 2020 and then harris in 2024 despite what was going on in Palestine? You were pretty insistent on that during the election and you've been very evasive on that. It would be really easy for you to say "no" or "I want to move forward from that so we can focus on what matters tomorrow" but you are going to have to show some sort of growth or movement from how you've acted in the past if you want people to move forward with you. This attitude of people needing to shut up and get in line behind you is exactly the attitude that pushes people away from you.
Plus its super weird to cosplay as someone you think is a genocide supporter/complicit in genocide.
On March 05 2025 11:01 Sermokala wrote: GH do you think libhorizons is a genocide supporter/complicit in genocide because he voted for Biden in 2020 and then harris in 2024 despite what was going on in Palestine? You were pretty insistent on that during the election and you've been very evasive on that. It would be really easy for you to say "no" or "I want to move forward from that so we can focus on what matters tomorrow" but no one is going to just shut up and fall in line with whatever you want. If you want a real community and a real coalition you need to compromise as well.
LibHorizons: Again, as I've said, I believe I am complicit but didn't have a better option.
On March 05 2025 11:01 Sermokala wrote: GH do you think libhorizons is a genocide supporter/complicit in genocide because he voted for Biden in 2020 and then harris in 2024 despite what was going on in Palestine? You were pretty insistent on that during the election and you've been very evasive on that. It would be really easy for you to say "no" or "I want to move forward from that so we can focus on what matters tomorrow" but no one is going to just shut up and fall in line with whatever you want. If you want a real community and a real coalition you need to compromise as well.
LibHorizons: Again, as I've said, I believe I am complicit but didn't have a better option.
Okay so you do see the problem with larping as someone you see as a genocide supporter right? Why do you think the best tact with people you want to convince to do something is to be as antagonistic as possible? Why do you expect anyone to treat with you in good faith when you act so shitty to them from the jump? Is your entire strategy to persuade people just insulting them and degrading them?
I don't know what relationships you've had in your life but if that's your image of a healthy one you need to work on yourself before trying to help anyone else.
On March 05 2025 11:01 Sermokala wrote: GH do you think libhorizons is a genocide supporter/complicit in genocide because he voted for Biden in 2020 and then harris in 2024 despite what was going on in Palestine? You were pretty insistent on that during the election and you've been very evasive on that. It would be really easy for you to say "no" or "I want to move forward from that so we can focus on what matters tomorrow" but no one is going to just shut up and fall in line with whatever you want. If you want a real community and a real coalition you need to compromise as well.
LibHorizons: Again, as I've said, I believe I am complicit but didn't have a better option.
Okay so you do see the problem with larping as someone you see as a genocide supporter right?+ Show Spoiler +
Why do you think the best tact with people you want to convince to do something is to be as antagonistic as possible? Why do you expect anyone to treat with you in good faith when you act so shitty to them from the jump? Is your entire strategy to persuade people just insulting them and degrading them?
I don't know what relationships you've had in your life but if that's your image of a healthy one you need to work on yourself before trying to help anyone else.
LibHorizons: I mean, I'm not really engaging with GH because I thought it would be more productive to discuss lib/Dem/ilk solutions with other lib/Dem/ilk people. If you would find it helpful for me to also engage with GH in the Socialism blog to demonstrate how we could potentially work together there instead of here I could be open to that.
I am skeptical that we can do that, or that it would be very productive, given how it's gone with the lib/Dem/ilk here thus far though.
On March 05 2025 06:07 KwarK wrote: 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. .
Right... and I'm sure everyone here would praise this "optimal strategy" if Trump threatened WW3 or nuclear holocaust...
Sure as hell beats the current one.
That said I don’t really think it’s an earnest attempt to broker earnest negotiations in the first place, so whatever tack you adopt starts to become somewhat immaterial.
I imagine for most there there’s a happy medium between threatening nuclear holocaust and just bending over for Russia as we’re currently seeing.
On March 05 2025 01:35 Sermokala wrote: [quote] 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.
LibHorizons: People that broadly support Trump's policy toward Israel-Palestine? Openly genocidal people?
I don't know. My personal inclination would be no. They sound like toxic assholes. But if the person is going to pass Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, and their local Democratic voters pick from a list I believe I could work with them. Especially if they won't be able to engage in genocide/ethnic cleansing because the people that are genuinely genocidal are a minority within the party as a consequence of strategic primaries.
EDIT: I mean I did ultimately vote for 2016 Hillary, 2020 Biden, and 2024 Harris despite the treatment from those camps for preferring Bernie and better policy/politicians over more aggressively demanding people vote for obviously nefarious people with irrefutably harmful policies.
Mainstream Democratic Party policy as well, that was aiding and abetting genocide too was it not?
It’s quite a darn pro-Israel country as well.
So is the play to just suck that up in the short term and hope to change minds in the medium/long term on that topic?
On March 05 2025 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]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.
LibHorizons: People that broadly support Trump's policy toward Israel-Palestine? Openly genocidal people?
I don't know. My personal inclination would be no. They sound like toxic assholes. But if the person is going to pass Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, and their local Democratic voters pick from a list I believe I could work with them. Especially if they won't be able to engage in genocide/ethnic cleansing because the people that are genuinely genocidal are a minority within the party as a consequence of strategic primaries.
EDIT: I mean I did ultimately vote for 2016 Hillary, 2020 Biden, and 2024 Harris despite the treatment from those camps for preferring Bernie and better policy/politicians over more aggressively demanding people vote for obviously nefarious people with irrefutably harmful policies.
Mainstream Democratic Party policy as well, that was aiding and abetting genocide too was it not?
It’s quite a darn pro-Israel country as well.
So is the play to just suck that up in the short term and hope to change minds in the medium/long term on that topic?
LibHorizons: I think we're past sucking it up in the "short term" and minds have changed/are changing. It's been over a decade (longer depending on one's engagement). What Biden/Harris were doing also wasn't actually that popular, especially among Democrats.
From A CBS Poll back in June 2024:
52. Regarding the situation with Israel and Hamas, which of these should the U.S. do or not do now?
Send weapons and supplies to Israel Should: 39% Should Not: 61% Should: 38% Should Not: 62% among independents Should: 22% Should Not: 77% among Democrats
So I think the question is whether the minority of Democrats that want to continue supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians should be allowed to remain in the party/avoid primaries?
My general inclination is no, but I recognize politics look different around the country and maybe the only person we can get that supports the plan (subject to improvement) is also pro ethnic cleansing + Show Spoiler +
(I really think these hypothetical people are basically non-existent/convincible at worst)
Considering all the fires that Trump has just started, I have a strong feeling that Palestine is not going to feature prominently in any "should we vote for this person" list.
On March 06 2025 03:01 EnDeR_ wrote: Considering all the fires that Trump has just started, I have a strong feeling that Palestine is not going to feature prominently in any "should we vote for this person" list.
Yeah. I don't think the people who decided to allow trump to win is looking back on their decision with regret at all. They didn't like Harris supporting Israel so now they've got to deal with trump building the Gaza version of Vegas.
There are giant drug labs and grow houses in rural BC. In this province fentanyl possession is legal. For the sake of all Canadians BC must make fentanyl possession illegal. Legalizing it was a dumb move.
Trudeau and Freeland are paying a very heavy price by referring to Trump supporters as maga morons 3 years ago. The payback is Trudeau being referred to as Governor Trudeau. If Canada's next PM can commit to building a real military perhaps Trump will refer to him or her as Prime Minister. The way Canadian Liberals have disdainfully referred to Republicans for decades is getting paid back now. "Good Luck Justin"
On March 06 2025 04:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: There are giant drug labs and grow houses in rural BC. In this province fentanyl possession is legal. For the sake of all Canadians BC must make fentanyl possession illegal. Legalizing it was a dumb move.
Trudeau and Freeland are paying a very heavy price by referring to Trump supporters as maga morons 3 years ago. The payback is Trudeau being referred to as Governor Trudeau. If Canada's next PM can commit to building a real military perhaps Trump will refer to him or her as Prime Minister. The way Canadian Liberals have disdainfully referred to Republicans for decades is getting paid back now. "Good Luck Justin"
On March 05 2025 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] 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.
LibHorizons: People that broadly support Trump's policy toward Israel-Palestine? Openly genocidal people?
I don't know. My personal inclination would be no. They sound like toxic assholes. But if the person is going to pass Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, and their local Democratic voters pick from a list I believe I could work with them. Especially if they won't be able to engage in genocide/ethnic cleansing because the people that are genuinely genocidal are a minority within the party as a consequence of strategic primaries.
EDIT: I mean I did ultimately vote for 2016 Hillary, 2020 Biden, and 2024 Harris despite the treatment from those camps for preferring Bernie and better policy/politicians over more aggressively demanding people vote for obviously nefarious people with irrefutably harmful policies.
Mainstream Democratic Party policy as well, that was aiding and abetting genocide too was it not?
It’s quite a darn pro-Israel country as well.
So is the play to just suck that up in the short term and hope to change minds in the medium/long term on that topic?
LibHorizons: I think we're past sucking it up in the "short term" and minds have changed/are changing. It's been over a decade (longer depending on one's engagement). What Biden/Harris were doing also wasn't actually that popular, especially among Democrats.
From A CBS Poll back in June 2024:
52. Regarding the situation with Israel and Hamas, which of these should the U.S. do or not do now?
Send weapons and supplies to Israel Should: 39% Should Not: 61% Should: 38% Should Not: 62% among independents Should: 22% Should Not: 77% among Democrats
So I think the question is whether the minority of Democrats that want to continue supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians should be allowed to remain in the party/avoid primaries?
My general inclination is no, but I recognize politics look different around the country and maybe the only person we can get that supports the plan (subject to improvement) is also pro ethnic cleansing + Show Spoiler +
(I really think these hypothetical people are basically non-existent/convincible at worst)
so I can't rule it out entirely.
Considering all the fires that Trump has just started, I have a strong feeling that Palestine is not going to feature prominently in any "should we vote for this person" list.
LibHorizons: Which makes the Democratic voters saying "support Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign or else we'll vote for Trump/Republicans" even more of a figment of Democrats imagination.
Supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign was one of the very few unpopular things Democrats fought for despite it polling poorly with their own party and independents. Shows they can try to convince people to hold an unpopular position and still support policies without popular support if they really believe in it. Which says a lot about the indisputably better and more popular policies they don't do this with.
Point being that it's extremely unlikely that Democrats need to cling to politicians that support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians for votes. Anyone claiming Democrats do need them is going to have to make that argument on a specific case by case basis.
EDIT: @Ender the point I'm making (on which it seems we agree) is that supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign wasn't and isn't actually a vote getter (despite that being accepted as common knowledge here and elsewhere), it's just something the politicians supported personally despite it being unpopular and hurting their electoral chances. So Wombats question is basically irrelevant.
Again, I severely doubt that anyone is going to be thinking about Palestine during the midterms. There are just too many other fires to put out. I'd imagine most candidates will be making a case on how they're going to unfuck America, not how they're going to help Palestine. That boat already sailed and those people thought that letting Trump through was a better outcome.
On March 06 2025 04:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: There are giant drug labs and grow houses in rural BC. In this province fentanyl possession is legal. For the sake of all Canadians BC must make fentanyl possession illegal. Legalizing it was a dumb move.
Trudeau and Freeland are paying a very heavy price by referring to Trump supporters as maga morons 3 years ago. The payback is Trudeau being referred to as Governor Trudeau. If Canada's next PM can commit to building a real military perhaps Trump will refer to him or her as Prime Minister. The way Canadian Liberals have disdainfully referred to Republicans for decades is getting paid back now. "Good Luck Justin"
Why not make more of it and fuck with the US?
Also, isn't the core problem with Fentanyl that so fucking many people in the US are apparently addicted to it?
Wouldn't it be sensible to look into why that is the case, instead of trying to control borders which hasn't worked against drugs since basically forever?
On March 06 2025 04:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: There are giant drug labs and grow houses in rural BC. In this province fentanyl possession is legal. For the sake of all Canadians BC must make fentanyl possession illegal. Legalizing it was a dumb move.
Trudeau and Freeland are paying a very heavy price by referring to Trump supporters as maga morons 3 years ago. The payback is Trudeau being referred to as Governor Trudeau. If Canada's next PM can commit to building a real military perhaps Trump will refer to him or her as Prime Minister. The way Canadian Liberals have disdainfully referred to Republicans for decades is getting paid back now. "Good Luck Justin"
Why not make more of it and fuck with the US?
Also, isn't the core problem with Fentanyl that so fucking many people in the US are apparently addicted to it?
Wouldn't it be sensible to look into why that is the case, instead of trying to control borders which hasn't worked against drugs since basically forever?
What you mean actually trying to identify the whys and whats and formulate an actual evidence-based policy to why the US, and basically only the US has a fentanyl problem of this degree?
What kind of crazy madness is this?! This isn’t how ‘Murica does things you filthy Euro-Commies
On March 06 2025 04:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: There are giant drug labs and grow houses in rural BC. In this province fentanyl possession is legal. For the sake of all Canadians BC must make fentanyl possession illegal. Legalizing it was a dumb move.
Trudeau and Freeland are paying a very heavy price by referring to Trump supporters as maga morons 3 years ago. The payback is Trudeau being referred to as Governor Trudeau. If Canada's next PM can commit to building a real military perhaps Trump will refer to him or her as Prime Minister. The way Canadian Liberals have disdainfully referred to Republicans for decades is getting paid back now. "Good Luck Justin"
Why not make more of it and fuck with the US?
Also, isn't the core problem with Fentanyl that so fucking many people in the US are apparently addicted to it?
Wouldn't it be sensible to look into why that is the case, instead of trying to control borders which hasn't worked against drugs since basically forever?
Gotta keep treating the symptoms. Can't admit the society has issues and actually work on them.
The guy on the blue suit is Canadian. JD Roberts. He started with CityTV in the 80s. Now that he is on Fox he doesn't seem to ever discuss his canadian roots.
Anyhow, Lutnick let the cat out of the bag. Its now pretty obvious what Trump's end game is with Tariffs. Scare the living shit out of executives motivating everyone to put their HQs and Central plant in the USA. Trump knows that long term tariffs are harmful. So he'll play with tariffs for a few months and then determine Canada and Mexico have done enough to solve the problem. Many major corps will be scared shitless of tariffs and any company "on the fence" about whether or not to base themselves in the USA or Mexico or Canada will go with the USA.
These tariffs will go away in about 6 months. Once Canada gets a non lame duck PM a new USMCA will get negotiated.
Really smart strategy by Trump. He hid his cards fairly well while pretending to play his cards face up. I'm impressed.
Before these tariffs are lifted i want a 25% tariff on every fucking Ubisoft game. What a garbage company they are.
Overall, Claudia Sheinbaum has done a far better job than whiney emotional Justin. Having watched this sordid play out I can see why Ms. Sheinbaum has such a high approval rating and why Trudeau's approval rating is the lowest in Canadian history.
I think Canadians and Mexicans can now breathe easier. This tariff thing will be ancient history by the end of the year. Both nations will have better access to the US consumer market than any other countries on earth.
Trump and analysis of every syllable he utters is on CBC 24/7/365... its fucking hilarious.
On March 06 2025 04:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: There are giant drug labs and grow houses in rural BC. In this province fentanyl possession is legal. For the sake of all Canadians BC must make fentanyl possession illegal. Legalizing it was a dumb move.
Trudeau and Freeland are paying a very heavy price by referring to Trump supporters as maga morons 3 years ago. The payback is Trudeau being referred to as Governor Trudeau. If Canada's next PM can commit to building a real military perhaps Trump will refer to him or her as Prime Minister. The way Canadian Liberals have disdainfully referred to Republicans for decades is getting paid back now. "Good Luck Justin"
Why not make more of it and fuck with the US?
Also, isn't the core problem with Fentanyl that so fucking many people in the US are apparently addicted to it?
Wouldn't it be sensible to look into why that is the case, instead of trying to control borders which hasn't worked against drugs since basically forever?
Gotta keep treating the symptoms. Can't admit the society has issues and actually work on them.
You make a good point. Get to the root cause of the problem: people with crushed souls need a quick temporary effortless high. That said, i think Fent is being attacked on many fronts. Using your analogy, going after Mexico is treating the symptoms. Trump initiated the MAHA movement and it is an attempt to get at the root cause of the Fentanyl problem.
On March 06 2025 04:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: There are giant drug labs and grow houses in rural BC. In this province fentanyl possession is legal. For the sake of all Canadians BC must make fentanyl possession illegal. Legalizing it was a dumb move. https://youtu.be/H9T3zFUJ99g?si=Gc9bhUtzwIt-INWb Trudeau and Freeland are paying a very heavy price by referring to Trump supporters as maga morons 3 years ago. The payback is Trudeau being referred to as Governor Trudeau. If Canada's next PM can commit to building a real military perhaps Trump will refer to him or her as Prime Minister. The way Canadian Liberals have disdainfully referred to Republicans for decades is getting paid back now. "Good Luck Justin"
Why not make more of it and fuck with the US?
Also, isn't the core problem with Fentanyl that so fucking many people in the US are apparently addicted to it? Wouldn't it be sensible to look into why that is the case, instead of trying to control borders which hasn't worked against drugs since basically forever?
Yes, that makes more sense. Trump is using Fentanyl as an excuse to circumvent the USMCA and induce investment into the USA by major manufacturing corps. The MAHA movement is the best solution to the Fentanyl problem. If you are a very healthy American then they can follow Nancy Reagan's saying and "just say `no` to drugs".
EPT
