EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4970
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25186 Posts
And what political violence there is, isn’t necessarily always stuff that gets the auld thumbs-up. Some, did sure. United Healthcare CEO definitely had a lot of that, would be silly to deny that. Albeit that seemed an increasingly rare event of cross-spectrum support. My main issue with January 6th isn’t actually that it happened, but the lack of balls in addressing it after the fact. Especially the pardons. I doubt most of the perps from your examples will be spending much, if any time as free persons until they die. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On May 26 2025 07:16 WombaT wrote: There’s a bit of a gap between accepting the narrative that Antifa are the big scary boogeymen/women, and denying there’s any left-wing political violence. And what political violence there is, isn’t necessarily always stuff that gets the auld thumbs-up. Some, did sure. United Healthcare CEO definitely had a lot of that, would be silly to deny that. Albeit that seemed an increasingly rare event of cross-spectrum support. My main issue with January 6th isn’t actually that it happened, but the lack of balls in addressing it after the fact. Especially the pardons. I doubt most of the perps from your examples will be spending much, if any time as free persons until they die. The Jan 6 people didn't get out until a pardon 4 years later, so there's just super convenient retcons going on here. I mean look at this My main issue with January 6th isn’t actually that it happened, but the lack of balls in addressing it after the fact. We've had to hear about Jan6 constantly since it happened. Where is anyone calling for a "discussion" about left-wing violence? For example, did the fire bombing of the PA gov mansion get any attention here at all? No, of course not. Again, it's either called justified or it's simply ignored. And we had posters calling antifa a boogeyman years ago while they were firebombing buildings and cars. And plenty of those people do get out, or more accurately, they are never pursued. People taking over buildings, for example. Left-wing prosecutors around the country are taking a light hand, so that's incorrect. Part of the reason the palestine protests got as bad as they did because they faced virtually no consequences. The United Health killing is just the worst example of recent memory and anyone who took even an ambivalent stance on that lost all credibility on the topic. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
Your imbecile god-king also prepared the ground for that in the 2024 election, hedging his bets by screeching about the election being stolen right up until the moment he was declared winner. This whole angle on violence reminds me of when you halfwits were pretending that the issue with "grab her by the pussy" was that he used the word "pussy". | ||
|
Razyda
712 Posts
Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications  .See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote: Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications .See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7291 Posts
Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. It’s not nazi like rhetoric any more than you taking breaths is nazi like respiration. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Yeah, the notion that saying we should beat racists up is the same or similar as racists saying they want to beat black people up is idiotic. Fundamentally, I believe fascists to be an entity that is thoroughly and absolutely incompatible with what I view as a fair and equitable society, they exist entirely in bad faith, pervert and abuse any and all structures around them for their own vile aims. I don't believe we should go around beating the ass of every basic bitch conservative because basic bitch conservatives aren't fundamentally incompatible with society in the same extremely dangerous way that fascists are. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25186 Posts
On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote: Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications .See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. Trump is imposing it. That’s the problem. If some hardcore Zionist doesn’t want to talk Israel/Palestine with me because of my views on it, that’s up to them. Or if they don’t want to associate with me at all. I would consider that regrettable, equally it’s their prerogative. You have the right to not bother with people you consider arseholes. I’m owed the right via the social contract to have my views. Im not owed a debate, or a platform by people who might find my views repugnant | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany935 Posts
Are off yet again. Dear leader spares us. From a June 1st to a July 9th deadline.. and probably Doubled at July 11th to be walked back within 24 hours. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
On May 26 2025 16:37 KT_Elwood wrote: EU TARIFFS! Are off yet again. Dear leader spares us. From a June 1st to a July 9th deadline.. and probably Doubled at July 11th to be walked back within 24 hours. The markets are barely reacting at this point, from >10% swings at first to <2% swings this time. He's gonna be able to pull off this market manipulation maybe once more before he's completely ignored (until people see the Trump tax actually in effect for a considerable time). But everything he does is moving wealth upwards in a society that's already dangerously unequal, I don't think transgendered people and Mexican farm hands are scary enough enemies to keep the population in check to continue this wealth transfer, he's gonna need to come up with some bigger bogeymen soon. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany935 Posts
Probably he already lost patience because this 24 hour peace deal is rally 2 orders of magnitude delayed | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
![[image loading]](https://gfx.nrk.no/FFYT6kgSw3MhTxq0LYigFgDpgwVWSjuCdpLInL3aXPdw.png) I do wonder how long this opinion sticks. And seriously what is with the random capitalizations. | ||
|
Timebon3s
Norway690 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11505 Posts
| ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia583 Posts
Also, if the war wouldn't have happened if he was in power, why is he so utterly incapable of stopping it now, he can't even get a ceasefire going that lasts more then 15 minutes. The more I'm observing his floundering on this topic the more I'm convinced that he actually is afraid of Putin, he, outwardly presents that it's because he doesn't want a nuclear war, which might be true, but I really have a feeling it's about more then that. | ||
|
Razyda
712 Posts
On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote: We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. "We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth." In case of tolerance this is exactly what we are discussing and there is no objective truth. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance "willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them" It is rather clear that this goes on personal level and will differ for every individual, and as such there is no objective truth what can/cant be tolerated. "We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game." Once you start going on about paradox of tolerance thats exactly the game. On May 26 2025 08:44 Zambrah wrote: It’s not nazi like rhetoric any more than you taking breaths is nazi like respiration. Yeah, the notion that saying we should beat racists up is the same or similar as racists saying they want to beat black people up is idiotic. Fundamentally, I believe fascists to be an entity that is thoroughly and absolutely incompatible with what I view as a fair and equitable society, they exist entirely in bad faith, pervert and abuse any and all structures around them for their own vile aims. I don't believe we should go around beating the ass of every basic bitch conservative because basic bitch conservatives aren't fundamentally incompatible with society in the same extremely dangerous way that fascists are. "It’s not nazi like rhetoric any more than you taking breaths is nazi like respiration." Like it or not you taking breath actually is nazi like respiration... (it is not like you can/should change it though) Difference between the two is that rhetoric is something you engage in willingly."Yeah, the notion that saying we should beat racists up is the same or similar as racists saying they want to beat black people up is idiotic." No my dude, what you fail to grasp is that it does remain the same disregarding of whether x should beat y, or y should beat x. The only difference being that if on the right side of the equation you will be fighting for justice, while on wrong you will be oppressed by bloody nazis, without realising that you are basically the same beast. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8505 Posts
from him being a whiny crybully to him having no idea with who he is dealing with... to me feeling robbed of time and brain cells reading this drivel... simply because he is POTUS and importance is implied so you simply have to _listen_ to this madman ramble... having an idiot at the helm already has incurred a terrible cost - people are still trying to calculate it and/or waiting for a sign... just hope it won't be another boom. after the GFC, the austerity aftermath and covid its kinda getting old. I hope people still carrying water for him are ready to pay. because paying you will, one way or another. from the forbes article just the conclusion. Conclusion The rise in US Treasury yields does not point to a US-specific problem; instead, it is a function of the lower probability of an economic downturn and perhaps a shift in the global appetite for government bonds. Yields are not high enough yet to significantly negatively impact stock valuation since the higher yields are accompanied by less risk of an earnings decline from a recession. Like many other countries, the current fiscal trajectory in the US is unsustainable, but the recent tax bill wouldn’t worsen things. Investors can be forgiven for wishing it improved the path, but the Senate will have their say next, and bond market participants will be watching closely. Government bond investors are demanding higher yields from most countries, so there might be a shift in the willingness of markets to fund large deficits, but it is too early to know for sure. interestingly he is kinda worried about the flashing red lights but not really in so many words. I particularly like the "like many other countries" start comment specifically aimed at... the ~4T$ make a wish tax bill. unsustainability lol. spending like drunken sailors more like. while at the same time cutting massively from poorer people and old ones. edit// PBS The CBO said the tax provisions would increase federal deficits by $3.8 trillion over the decade, while the changes to Medicaid, food stamps and other services would tally $1 trillion in reduced spending. The lowest-income households in the U.S. would see their resources drop, while the highest ones would see a boost, it said. great job, let's put a bow on it and call it winning. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25186 Posts
On May 26 2025 20:24 Jankisa wrote: I love how he's absolutely incapable of criticizing Putin without providing a nice little false equivalence with Zelenskyy. Also, if the war wouldn't have happened if he was in power, why is he so utterly incapable of stopping it now, he can't even get a ceasefire going that lasts more then 15 minutes. The more I'm observing his floundering on this topic the more I'm convinced that he actually is afraid of Putin, he, outwardly presents that it's because he doesn't want a nuclear war, which might be true, but I really have a feeling it's about more then that. Who is that Tweet even for? Just embarrassing on so many levels. His fan club will say he’s doing a great job without him saying anything, for anyone else it hardly inspires confidence. For, fuck’s sake. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany935 Posts
If he has to create problems to get attention, he can uncreate them and make people say that they are reliefed because of his decisions (to not really nuke the american retailmarket by tariffs to EVERYONE). He also enjoys petty revenge done by his goons, who enjoy pleasing him. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10494 Posts
On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote: We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Look at the Presidents of the Ivy League universities testifying before Congress that couldn’t say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their student code of conduct. It’s doubtful they would have been as tolerant of speech that called for lynching their black students or exterminating their trans students. There’s no explanation to be more tolerant of speech to genocide Jews that is based on some objective truth. Surely there is a little hypocrisy in the idea that we should meet Nazis with violence but students that call for the annihilation of Jews need not even be disciplined by their university? | ||
| ||
