EPTOne of your many problems is that you don't seem to have a sufficient vocabulary to express your ideas.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4981
| 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 | ||
KwarK
United States42370 Posts
One of your many problems is that you don't seem to have a sufficient vocabulary to express your ideas. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24660 Posts
On May 29 2025 01:36 Falling wrote: This is perhaps the closest admission that there is no defence for Trump's actions (peace be upon him). That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if was, that's not a big deal. Run out frivolous defences and when pressed, fall silent and loftily indicate by some phrase that the time for argument is over. I. Don't. Care. Tim Pool's been running that 'defence' recently as well. When shown anything that is done against the constitution (due process), the response is "I don't care." Well, okay then. But I don't ever want to hear MAGA lines of critiques of their political opponents that utilizes constitutional originalism or anything like it. MAGA true believers clearly do not care when it's their side and so should never be taken seriously again on the matter. That's it? One assassination attempt by some loony and you get a free pass on running pump and dump scams and rank corruption (pay to play justice) for the rest of your administration. Nice. 1921 communists threw a bomb at the little Austrian corporal giving a speech so I no longer even pay obvious wolf-criers the benefit of the doubt. Got'em. An assassination attempt should not cause you to deliberately blind yourself to the actions of their target no matter how odious the assassins may be. Unless you are a hyperpartisan supporter. Tim Pool is quite a good example. He’s impossible to take seriously or earnestly. Not simply because I disagree with the man, but he’ll contradict his own supposedly sacrosanct beliefs when it suits. How he’s a multimillionaire off political and cultural commentary is as potent an argument against capitalism and the myth of meritocracy as I’ve ever run into. Anyway someone like, idk Ben Shapiro isn’t without contradictions (I am also guilty, it’s a complex world), but at least when I dipped in for my conservative voices dose, the things he claimed to hold important when it went against my politics, he did at least stick to Caveat - I have not consumed much Shapiro for many, many years. First term Trump really, I mean I’ve seen the odd clip he’s in since. He expressed plenty of reservations then. Some constitutional, some being critical of Trump’s moral bona fides etc. If he’s stopped doing that and joined the cult, then a bad example. It’s something I’ve made a point of, here and especially elsewhere. Hey, it’d be great if you had my values, awesome that makes things simpler! However, if you do not, I expect you to abide by your own stated values. With a little wriggle room for general, basically universal human inconsistency. If you do not, how can I take you remotely as earnestly objecting to what I think? How can you couch an argument in strict constitutionalism to counter an objection of mine, if you’re OK with that principle being pissed on elsewhere? You can’t, it’s preposterous. Inb4 ‘the left do this too’. I mean, yeah. But leftist frameworks have certain general principles, but they’re a bit more fluid. If your bedrock is a borderline immutable document like the Constitution, not a huge amount of room for deviation. Or free speech. I think it’s a complicated balancing act between all sorts of competing principles. It can be difficult to navigate, I’ll confess it’s a struggle of mine to try to keep that balance, while being externally consistent. But that’s complicated. If you tell me you’re a free speech absolutistTM, I think it’s a bad maxim, but it is a simple one to stick to. If you can’t stick to it and frequently arbitrarily deviate, why would I believe it’s a principle you actually hold dear? I think these days things are rather fractious, and often pretty shitty in terms of cross-wing discourse. However I think many conservatives (and some on the left) completely neglect that aspect of the equation and its impact. It’s the simple difference between ‘I think you are wrong’ and ‘I think you are full of shit’. You can have a civil chat, perhaps animated on the former and it might be worthwhile. You can’t do that with the latter | ||
|
oBlade
United States5429 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11424 Posts
On May 29 2025 01:59 KwarK wrote: Leftists literally can't be Nazis for the same reason that rectangles can't be triangles. Nazism is intrinsically a right wing ideology. One of your many problems is that you don't seem to have a sufficient vocabulary to express your ideas. The weird thing is that that isn't even saying that leftwing people cannot be horribly inhumane assholes. They absolutely can. They just cannot be that specific type of horribly inhumane assholes. They can still be Stalinist, or Maoist, or "whatever Pol Pot was" -ist. They can also be terrorists or murderers. Just not Nazis. That is what makes this discussion so silly, which makes me think it is just a distraction. Just constantly say enough absurdly stupid shit in an increasingly high speed torrent of shit so people get overwhelmed and cannot deal with it anymore seems to be the current rightwing build order. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42370 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24660 Posts
On May 29 2025 02:55 oBlade wrote: Yeah if I watched Ben Shapiro (fast talking hack), Steven Crowder (fast talking bad husband hack), Matt Walsh (slow talking good husband hack), David Pakman (smug hack), Brian Tyler Cohen (sanctimonious hack), Tim Pool (fast talking hack mark II), Michael Knowles (staring hack), or Dave Rubin (classical hack), I'd be irritable too. Those are not the way to psychological stability or intellectual enlightenment. Cutting off talking heads (metaphorically) as an information source entirely is recommended. Any alternative paths? You’ve showcased a lot of intellectual enlightenment on here so, always looking tips. I mean, obviously an insane idea but I thought perhaps if I wanted to better tap into the conservative zeitgeist it might be a worthwhile endeavour to watch some of what they’re watching. I would agree that much of this is just brainrot, if I actually want to explore ideas I’ll read some books. If conservatives were actually behaving like strict constitutionalists, I’d pore through that again, maybe get some further reading of analysis or historical context. As they are not doing that, and seemingly jump from the latest talking point to the next, well, what are those talking points? My partner has frequently godawful music taste, although it’s eclectic enough to also feature some bangers. I’m not going to gain much insight on her proclivities in re-reading ‘The Rest is Noise’ by Alex Ross. Although it is a very good read if you’re interested in music and the transition in classical music from quite strict diatonic structures into a bleed through of dissonance and chromaticism through to atonal music. Or the culture of the time and how classical composers were influenced and incorporated influences from folk traditions through to jazz. Good read, not really suitable for that particular application. If memory serves you don’t identify as a conservative yourself right? Nonetheless, do you not see a fundamental problem with your retort here? I gave two examples of quite prominent talking heads in the conservative/conservative sphere, one shit, one not to my taste but, I think with a certain degree of principles. If your response is ‘actually here’s a list of further conservative voices’ (plus David Pakman, and a few I dunno how they align), and they’re all shit.’ How in any way does that do anything other than reinforce my point my man? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21563 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:22 KwarK wrote: Watching Idiocracy happen before our very eyes sure is something ><The rarest of things, an oblade post I agree with. And it's non partisan, short format staged political dunking for the non existent attention spans of the tik tok generation is universally dumb. Politics should be about as dry and boring as a scientific paper on enzymes. It's become pro wrestling and nobody is better off for it. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24660 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:22 KwarK wrote: The rarest of things, an oblade post I agree with. And it's non partisan, short format staged political dunking for the non existent attention spans of the tik tok generation is universally dumb. Politics should be about as dry and boring as a scientific paper on enzymes. It's become pro wrestling and nobody is better off for it. I agree too with that specific point. I’m just highly skeptical as to its invocation. Politics shouldn’t be dry and boring though, how’s that enthuse people? The discourse just shouldn’t be lowest common denominator bollocks. There’s some happy medium between it only being a topic than enthuses politics nerds (me in my teens) and whatever the fuck this is. It’s remarkable listening to some of the classic addresses of the 20th century and just how much more substantive they are, while still being pretty accessible to most. | ||
|
Razyda
627 Posts
On May 29 2025 01:59 KwarK wrote: Leftists literally can't be Nazis for the same reason that rectangles can't be triangles. Nazism is intrinsically a right wing ideology. One of your many problems is that you don't seem to have a sufficient vocabulary to express your ideas. Oh please we have been through that. Hitlers "ich bin sozialist" is a lie, but all self declared leftist are not lying? Leftists seem very fond of some far right ideologies. "Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements." It doesnt matter if you call your übermenschen leftist, it is still the same nazi ideology, whether you like it, or not. So far your untermenschen deserved to be shoot in the back, have their property destroyed for a crime of... owning a tesla. Also how you square a fact that lefties cant be nazis, but they actually can when they own a tesla? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28614 Posts
If a leftist owns a tesla he's a leftist who owns a tesla, not a nazi. Whether you belong to a political ideology depends upon what beliefs you hold, not whether you have at some point done some action that in some way can be associated with some group. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42370 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:37 WombaT wrote: how’s that enthuse people? Why is it meant to? Consider the opposite extreme. Two dreary accountant types should put forward competing policy platforms to a population, ideally in a single blind format so the people don't know who proposed which policy platform. Any included costing or claims should be reviewed by relevant academics like you would with a scientific paper and annotated with their findings. So if a candidate claims that electing them will allow them to defeat ISIS because they're going to use the element of surprise which is a new thing that the army is currently unaware of and the failure to use the element of surprise has been the one thing that has held the army back in Iraq then we'd have a bipartisan group of generals note whether that is correct. Voters who literally don't care enough to read through it all don't have to, I'd expect most people not to vote in that scenario. Voters who have strong opinions on taxation and do read through it may get some benefit from footnotes that explain that the proposed tariffs would be the highest tax increase on the American public in history. We'd get away from the scenario where people leave Brexit because a bus told them that the EU stole the NHS doctors or whatever. You read the proposals, read the supporting materials and annotations, and you decide. If you want to ban abortion then whatever, do it, but do it after reading the real number of abortions, the proportion of them at each stage of pregnancy, and so forth. Politics could be a technocratic field with people getting increasingly wonkish about their niche area of policy, just like we see with history. There are historians who literally wrote the book on early Byzantine history who, if you ask them about late Roman history, will rattle off vast amounts of information while simultaneously insisting that they're really not an expert but that there's a colleague of theirs who is the guy to go to. They're not being modest, it's just the greater your understanding of a field gets the more aware you are of the limitations of your knowledge elsewhere is. Public health or transportation infrastructure or military planning should all be utterly opaque to the average layman because they are fields that a layman can't meaningfully engage in. I'm comfortable being pretty bombastic about a lot of things on teamliquid because I have confidence that this is all just talking and that nothing meaningfully changes because of anything I write here. But put me in power and I'm not making gut calls about shit. Make me president for the day and I'm not going to just give Ukraine everything they ask for, there are CIA analysts who have made kremlinology their life's work, I'm going to go talk to those guys. If I'm excited to be making decisions then I'm doing it wrong. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24660 Posts
On May 29 2025 04:15 KwarK wrote: Why is it meant to? Consider the opposite extreme. Two dreary accountant types should put forward competing policy platforms to a population, ideally in a single blind format so the people don't know who proposed which policy platform. Any included costing or claims should be reviewed by relevant academics like you would with a scientific paper and annotated with their findings. So if a candidate claims that electing them will allow them to defeat ISIS because they're going to use the element of surprise which is a new thing that the army is currently unaware of and the failure to use the element of surprise has been the one thing that has held the army back in Iraq then we'd have a bipartisan group of generals note whether that is correct. Voters who literally don't care enough to read through it all don't have to, I'd expect most people not to vote in that scenario. Voters who have strong opinions on taxation and do read through it may get some benefit from footnotes that explain that the proposed tariffs would be the highest tax increase on the American public in history. We'd get away from the scenario where people leave Brexit because a bus told them that the EU stole the NHS doctors or whatever. You read the proposals, read the supporting materials and annotations, and you decide. If you want to ban abortion then whatever, do it, but do it after reading the real number of abortions, the proportion of them at each stage of pregnancy, and so forth. Politics could be a technocratic field with people getting increasingly wonkish about their niche area of policy, just like we see with history. There are historians who literally wrote the book on early Byzantine history who, if you ask them about late Roman history, will rattle off vast amounts of information while simultaneously insisting that they're really not an expert but that there's a colleague of theirs who is the guy to go to. They're not being modest, it's just the greater your understanding of a field gets the more aware you are of the limitations of your knowledge elsewhere is. Public health or transportation infrastructure or military planning should all be utterly opaque to the average layman because they are fields that a layman can't meaningfully engage in. I'm comfortable being pretty bombastic about a lot of things on teamliquid because I have confidence that this is all just talking and that nothing meaningfully changes because of anything I write here. But put me in power and I'm not making gut calls about shit. Make me president for the day and I'm not going to just give Ukraine everything they ask for, there are CIA analysts who have made kremlinology their life's work, I'm going to go talk to those guys. If I'm excited to be making decisions then I'm doing it wrong. ‘Pretty bombastic’? :p Don’t particularly disagree, I just think you can do both. It’s ‘boring’ auld engineers and programmers who make the systems to play cool fucking games. You don’t need to know anything about either to enjoy your cool fucking game. In a crude sense ‘here’s what you want, we’ll explain the gist and we’ll leave a bunch of technocratic wizards to do it’ is fine, indeed my preference. But you need that connective tissue between general aspiration and execution. Someone like Bernie Sanders is quite good at this, as a figurehead type. He can do the moral argument, equally he can do some detail to sell it. But if he was Health Secretary he’d leave the really granular details to the technocrats. The trifecta really. Politics can have actual substance without being boring, or the domain of bean counters. I don’t think any hypothetical system one could devise within your parameters fixes the problems we see now. People were told Brexit was a fucking stupid idea, they didn’t believe what they were told. If proposals are presented in the way you mention, why would they believe them then? It’s the same experts in either case, same with tariffs. I’m not going to suddenly find the Bank of England more or less credible if it’s a matter of independent statements and published predictions, versus their mandated assesment of a manifesto. I’ve quite a high opinion of myself, I don’t think I can adequately assess stuff like macroeconomic policy myself, unless it’s super obvious. Other stuff, yeah. I hate invoking Dunning-Kruger, as it’s oft invoked wrongly, but I think it applies here. The vaguely intelligent will end up paralysed trying to parse information they can’t, and know they can’t parse. Reactionary morons will still not give a shit regardless and hit that cross at the ballot box. I think you just end up with basically exactly what we have now with your proposals. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5429 Posts
On May 29 2025 03:26 WombaT wrote: Any alternative paths? You’ve showcased a lot of intellectual enlightenment on here so, always looking tips. I mean, obviously an insane idea but I thought perhaps if I wanted to better tap into the conservative zeitgeist it might be a worthwhile endeavour to watch some of what they’re watching. I would agree that much of this is just brainrot, if I actually want to explore ideas I’ll read some books. If conservatives were actually behaving like strict constitutionalists, I’d pore through that again, maybe get some further reading of analysis or historical context. As they are not doing that, and seemingly jump from the latest talking point to the next, well, what are those talking points? My partner has frequently godawful music taste, although it’s eclectic enough to also feature some bangers. I’m not going to gain much insight on her proclivities in re-reading ‘The Rest is Noise’ by Alex Ross. Although it is a very good read if you’re interested in music and the transition in classical music from quite strict diatonic structures into a bleed through of dissonance and chromaticism through to atonal music. Or the culture of the time and how classical composers were influenced and incorporated influences from folk traditions through to jazz. Good read, not really suitable for that particular application. If memory serves you don’t identify as a conservative yourself right? Nonetheless, do you not see a fundamental problem with your retort here? I gave two examples of quite prominent talking heads in the conservative/conservative sphere, one shit, one not to my taste but, I think with a certain degree of principles. If your response is ‘actually here’s a list of further conservative voices’ (plus David Pakman, and a few I dunno how they align), and they’re all shit.’ How in any way does that do anything other than reinforce my point my man? I could have added more like bald hack, British hack, spiritual hack. If you're going for Zeitgeist awareness, you could be good if you take the information conditionally and filter it on the fact that this is information you're taking in for Zeitgeist awareness purposes, not necessarily all for its veracity and significance. Even if those sources are shit they will generally tell you where people are, which is that people are busy and have a lot of stuff going on so they gravitate near averages. Those voices will generally reflect or approximate those averages. Being a voice doesn't make them thinkers, though. Even for that the most productive way is when people are actually talking to each other, not to their camera, or shows with discussion and not scripted teleprompter bullshit. The presence of multiple people is supposed to moderate each other and pressure them to cut bullshit - if we're social animals. This is why TYT is a staple. If you want right leaning examples in the TYT vein, Valuetainment is solid. The guy made it as a MLM scammer, but he can actually do long form interviews well, which is important. (Panels aren't foolproof either because at some point there's a line a show crosses where it's a fake panel, like Crowder where everyone but him is just a lapdog.) Megyn Kelley is not bad. Bannon's War Room is also a key one. He has occasional hinge issues that can be worse than Alex Jones. For long form interviews, Tucker is key. Since being independent that's basically what he sticks to. And except for writing, it's what he does best. Some of it's about the guests, some of it's about skill. (Lex Fridman gets all the best guests and can't interview for shit which makes his show nearly unwatchable.) One diamond in the rough for right-leaning is California Insider, I find it pretty centrist as they have guests from any side, usually not as prominent Democrats. The amazing thing is even though nearly every guest is a relative nobody, they are without fail more articulate and more competent than Speaker Pelosi. Another is Nick Shirley, he's rising. Leans right but doesn't preach. Kind of gonzo? He's young, not as experienced so a bit choppy at times, very respectful and personable and somehow gets people to be honest and open and candid. And he always goes right to where current event news is coming from. Think: Hurricane in North Carolina, in a couple days he's there streaming from it. I mean Charlie Rose had great interviews and I don't think he was particularly bright. But that's the advantage videos have for what they deliver as media. If I want just information as such, like you say there's other avenues. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23022 Posts
On May 29 2025 04:09 Liquid`Drone wrote: Leftists can't be nazis. Right wingers can't be anarcho-socialists. These statements are unequivocally true, and if you believe otherwise, it is because you are ignorant of political ideologies. Left wingers also can't be libertarians. There's something to be said about right and left wing being descriptions of how someone is on a spectrum so maybe you could argue that a democratic socialist is right wing if everybody else is an anarcho-socialist, but nazism is commonly understood to be the most far right ideology. If a leftist owns a tesla he's a leftist who owns a tesla, not a nazi. Whether you belong to a political ideology depends upon what beliefs you hold, not whether you have at some point done some action that in some way can be associated with some group. What would Biden have been if he stopped Trump by using his legal ability to kill him in defense of US democracy and in opposition to Trump's fascist agenda? What is Biden instead of that since he willingly handed immeasurable power to an open fascist? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42370 Posts
On May 29 2025 05:06 WombaT wrote: ‘Pretty bombastic’? :p Don’t particularly disagree, I just think you can do both. It’s ‘boring’ auld engineers and programmers who make the systems to play cool fucking games. You don’t need to know anything about either to enjoy your cool fucking game. In a crude sense ‘here’s what you want, we’ll explain the gist and we’ll leave a bunch of technocratic wizards to do it’ is fine, indeed my preference. But you need that connective tissue between general aspiration and execution. Someone like Bernie Sanders is quite good at this, as a figurehead type. He can do the moral argument, equally he can do some detail to sell it. But if he was Health Secretary he’d leave the really granular details to the technocrats. The trifecta really. Politics can have actual substance without being boring, or the domain of bean counters. I don’t think any hypothetical system one could devise within your parameters fixes the problems we see now. People were told Brexit was a fucking stupid idea, they didn’t believe what they were told. If proposals are presented in the way you mention, why would they believe them then? It’s the same experts in either case, same with tariffs. I’m not going to suddenly find the Bank of England more or less credible if it’s a matter of independent statements and published predictions, versus their mandated assesment of a manifesto. I’ve quite a high opinion of myself, I don’t think I can adequately assess stuff like macroeconomic policy myself, unless it’s super obvious. Other stuff, yeah. I hate invoking Dunning-Kruger, as it’s oft invoked wrongly, but I think it applies here. The vaguely intelligent will end up paralysed trying to parse information they can’t, and know they can’t parse. Reactionary morons will still not give a shit regardless and hit that cross at the ballot box. I think you just end up with basically exactly what we have now with your proposals. One of the Brexit issues was partly that the factual information space was cluttered. Sure, it wasn't all of the same quality, but facts were being debated. On the one hand there was a bus claiming that the EU robbed the NHS and on the other there were serious people saying that it didn't. People didn't know who to believe in that scenario. I don't think the bus should be given a platform. The fact space shouldn't be cluttered. But in terms of making any of this workable then sure, it's just a thought experiment. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28614 Posts
On May 29 2025 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote: What would Biden have been if he stopped Trump by using his legal ability to kill him in defense of US democracy and in opposition to Trump's fascist agenda? What is Biden instead of that since he willingly handed immeasurable power to an open fascist? For Biden to kill Trump, presumably he'd have to believe that this was the right thing to do, so in that case it's not an 'action that can in some way be associated with some group' (like how a hinduist with a swastika tattoo is probably not a nazi) - but an ideologically motivated action. And I dunno what he'd be if he did that. It wouldn't make him a fascist, even if the 'kills political opponents'-parameter fits the bill. And he's not a fascist for handing over power to a fascist either. Like, to be clear, fascist - like most ideologies, isn't neatly defined, but there are multiple elements that you can solidly associate with it. I'm guessing you know that, but stuff like - extreme authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, the creation of an enemy, reactionary appeal to tradition, no freedom of press and action for the sake of action - you're not fascist unless you tick many of those boxes. The killing of one political enemy isn't enough - and fascism also isn't the only form of totalitarianism either, so even if you tick all the totalitarian ones, that also is not necessarily fascism. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7218 Posts
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/man-wearing-nazi-t-shirt-201221275.html | ||
|
Falling
Canada11335 Posts
What little I've seen was pretty poor. He's got that comedian on all the time for geopolitics who doesn't tell any jokes but is out here trying to reframe WWII as one where Churchill is culpable as though Hitler should've just been allowed to take all of Europe uncontested--completely ripping the 'avoidable war' quote out of context, which only a cursory glance at the original source ought to have made him realize Churchill meant the opposite of what these 'Churchill was the chief villain' alternate history guys are trying to say. But this contemporary reframing of Churchill as a chief culprit of beginning WWII is no accident And Tucker? Independent Tucker I wouldn't be surprised is taking Russian money like Independent Tim Pool was. Or maybe he's spewing Russian propaganda for free, I don't know. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24660 Posts
On May 29 2025 05:54 Zambrah wrote: This is the kind of energy I want to see in the world, a bunch of people pushing around a Nazi invading their space. This is the kind of behavior I expect from a punk concert, I'm hoping people can start to really match it and make Nazis feel very unsafe, uncomfortable, and unwelcome. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/man-wearing-nazi-t-shirt-201221275.html | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20008 Posts
| ||
| ||
