|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 13 2025 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much do we know about the psychology of people in this stage of a political party ramping up the fascist stuff? Do we have interview accounts from people in Nazi Germany when it was still really early on? Or other similar fascist rises. There are a couple of people who I have chatted with about Trump and what the current situation is, and I am genuinely getting the impression they know what's going on but they don't want to admit it.
I will say I think most people are so tribal and so committed to "us vs them" mindsets they truly don't understand what is going on is bad. They are the by far majority and they are an example of how a frog can be boiled. Everything that happens is contextualized by the previous week, so nothing seems bad.
But there are definitely some people who seem to know what's going on and just don't want to admit they are into it and think its good. These are the really interesting people to me because it feels like they not only like it, but they want to be a part of it.They want to contribute to the gaslighting and they seem motivated to keep this fascist stuff on track to fully secure a dictatorship. It is very chilling and weird to interact with because I can tell they are trying to stay on message and not give an inch and whatnot.
The way I understand it right-wing propaganda rests on the assumption that the left is too extreme to be reasoned with, which justifies right-wing extremism.
This is the key difference. While we believe contrarianist extremism is the wrong answer to extremism, they instead use it as a justification.
|
On June 13 2025 02:51 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2025 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 12 2025 23:30 WombaT wrote:On June 12 2025 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 12 2025 08:51 WombaT wrote:On June 12 2025 08:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 12 2025 07:47 Jankisa wrote:I think it greatly depends on the topic. GH is an annoying cosplayer who is completely uninterested in having any sort of a real discussion because he thinks he's above it, all of us who engage in any realpolitk are morons who don't understand that his way is the only way and doing anything that he doesn't agree with is a big waste of time, ironically, he's not really doing anything so there's that. The split personality saga was so annoying that it might paint people here as overly aggressive and angry at him, to me, at least in this thread he's relatively benign, pushing his own little agendas and criticisms and living his best far leftie life. On the other hand, his takes in the Palestine and Ukraine threads are extremely obnoxious and aggravating. + Show Spoiler +oBlade is just a weird little dude who much like him thinks he's the only one who figured things out, in a really weird twist he gets most of his takes from Tucker Carlson who might be the most fake person in the history of media so there's that.
Also, as a personal pet peeve, oBlade thinks he's funny which makes him much worse. Also, fascist bootlicking. Your emotionally lashing out with personal attacks is pretty standard around here. There's actually a wide spectrum of ideas that I have mixed feelings about and would be thrilled to have a real discussion on. They just aren't really reformism/electoralism for reasons I've laid out at length. That said, no one wants to develop/contribute to the best plan for Democrats to win electorally anyway. Lots of people here are better educated and probably more capable in a host of intellectual tasks than I am. We all literally think the politics we have are the best we can have (maybe you guys intentionally have shitty politics?). I'm sure people have noticed I post significantly less than I did at my peak, in part, because I'm doing more in my communities that aren't TL. You guys can keep your little mean girl routine up as long as you'd like though. Discuss them then, nobody is stopping you. + Show Spoiler +
I don’t especially disagree with your critiques of reformism at all. I think the problem with your ‘best plan’ is it’s not couched in reality. I’m more team Kwark on this. If Obamacare is too socialist for many, and you’ve voted in a Fascist strongman twice, then said nation to me would not be a prime candidate for me to flip to genuine left wing politics. I don’t think a polity can simultaneously be primed for a leftist revolution, while being Fascist-adjacent at the same time.
If attempts to do so keep on losing, then at some point one has to accept you’re a leftist living in an avowedly right wing country. If there’s some signs of the opposite, great maybe not.
Myself, I’m waiting for the dust to settle a bit. If leftist candidates start making inroads, even if they’re merely performing better than expected and don’t actually win, you’re getting some data that there’s some receptiveness there. If they aren’t, consistently then I’d find it hard to argue that, at least pragmatically that it’s a good plan to pivot left. A main part of the point I've made is that the libs/Dems/ilk that believe in electoralism aren't discussing how they are making it work now among themselves. So much so, that months later, instead of pointing to their better plan and their discussion of it, they still typically just attack me personally instead. Despite not being able to vote and taking a "wait and see" approach (that's definitively not how you get off the path of fascism), you're more engaged on the topic than any of the posters that can vote and need to be discussing/taking actions that will take the US off the path of self-destructive fascism. I'd like to see the libs/Dems/ilk that believe in electoralism discuss it like they actually believe in it beyond just rationalizing bad policy and spamming to vote blue no matter who when it gets to a general. They insist I'm not worthy of discussing that with them (while still demanding my vote), that's fine, I'm pointing out they don't discuss it among themselves here either. Libs/Dems/ilk prefer to do the arguing with squirrels in the park thing. ‘Wait and see’ informs the plan. It’s not a substitute for it. Maybe vast swathes of the country are sick of the GOP and mainstream Democratic politics and want a proper departure. Maybe they don’t, and a return to Biden-era respectability is the height of ambition there. Maybe it’s both and just varies hugely by state or other locale. Until we get a clearer sense of that collectively, how does one plan a counter-punch? I might have a fantastic plan to push and elevate leftist candidates across the nation. It doesn’t matter how good the plan is if there’s a huge amount of hostility towards genuine leftist politics. + Show Spoiler +For me electoralism and legalistic frameworks are far, far better at keeping Fascists from power, than it is in dealing with them when they are in power. Which greatly informed my pre-election positions, and I think we’re seeing borne out subsequently in real time. "Wait and see" is the (bad imo) plan. A significant part of politics is using this time specifically (when it isn't "vote blue no matter who to stop the GOP" time) to influence and shift opinions on Democrat party politics along with their appeals to the masses. "Wait and see" is also just not how primary campaigns (or democracy generally) for people that aren't the incumbent work. You don't just wait and see how people vote (unless one's intent is to thinly veil a desire to maintain the status quo). Instead of using this time (when we don't have to fall in line to beat the GOP) to shape Democrat politics and their appeal to the masses, we get a perpetual stream of variations on "wow MAGA is stupid!" for libs/Dems/ilk to pump up their egos while they "wait and see" which Democrat the party makes them support in the general. Well no, you don’t do nothing in the interim necessarily, but you do have to assess whether a chosen course of action can even work. Most people are followers, not activists. They may jump on a train that’s got some momentum, they’re not going to be the ones first pushing it. Perhaps a problem sure, but I think a pretty reasonable observation. + Show Spoiler +Myself, not American. All I can really do is give my half a dollar and wait and see how something goes. If one is American, perhaps some local organiser gets a ball rolling, or a campaign firing, and if sufficient, others start to get engaged by it close to the ground floor. Right to the wavering voter who might only make that call on election day.
Folks jump in and out at different points. And with that in mind, without some evidence, we’re just indulging in speculation, or aspirations rather than anything practical. Rewind back to the Tea Party. Obviously have had a big influence on how politics have gone. On day one it really metastasised into being a semi-formal movement, if you asked me ‘will the Tea Party effectively rule America one day?’, I’d have zero idea. I’d just be guessing. Further and further down the line, where you see the momentum, the popularity of some ideas, then I’ve got a way better idea. I’d merely apply the same lens to efforts to push the Democratic Party leftwards. I’d like to see it, personally. But I need to see some momentum, some growth, some minor wins that become major wins etc. As of now, it’s just kinda hard to know which way the cookie will crumble. People will naturally talk more about the GOP, at a time where they’re in power and fucking things up.
The perpetual stream of mocking and gawking at Republicans sure seems like nothing.
The Tea Party was a Koch brothers initiative that they lost control of to Trump when he consolidated them by saying the quiet parts loud.
The Tea Party didn't "wait and see". They shouted completely bonkers stuff at the top of their lungs while libs/Dems/ilk mocked and gawked at them like they are now. I'm trying to get those same libs/Dems/ilk to see why they need to stop their incessant mocking and gawking/arguing with squirrels, instead refocusing on building their own movement in real opposition to the rise of fascism. Otherwise they'll lose like they did to Trump/the Tea Party and drag the rest of us down with them.
But as has been demonstrated several times, for months, they can't help themselves.
|
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
It’s a bold strategy cotton, let’s see how it plays out.
|
United States42459 Posts
On June 13 2025 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
instead refocusing on building their own movement in real opposition to the rise of fascism
You seem to find time to post on tl and be a revolutionary so I'm not sure why you presume that noone else here is doing just as much overthrowing the government as you are.
|
Yeah the Teaparty was basically political Jihad. And it worked extremely well. All the somewhat reasonable people had a choice between the party imploding or agreeing with everything Sarah Palin said. The left could stand to learn from them.
|
On June 13 2025 06:12 Luolis wrote:
What you guys have to understand is that for once GH is right. The only effective way to stop the fascist takeover of America is to fight back actively. These people don't care about being proven right or wrong, they just want to hurt other people.
Think it's a bit more often than that, but I'll take it.
On June 13 2025 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah the Teaparty was basically political Jihad. And it worked extremely well. All the somewhat reasonable people had a choice between the party imploding or agreeing with everything Sarah Palin said. The left could stand to learn from them.
Democrat leaders are choosing to implode (one example being going against their voters and independents on supporting genocide) because they fear socialists (even social democrats really) being in charge more than they fear fascists being in charge.
That's one reason why I try to get people recognize Democrats are actually part of the opposition to their desired politics (even if they are tepid social democratic politics).
|
On June 13 2025 06:12 Luolis wrote:
What you guys have to understand is that for once GH is right. The only effective way to stop the fascist takeover of America is to fight back actively. These people don't care about being proven right or wrong, they just want to hurt other people.
We know. We've been trying to tell him for years that we already agree with him but he refuses to see that he would need to treat others with respect and to work with them instead of demanding that everyone just follow what he believes.
Gh doesn't believe in actually doing anything to stop trump. He actively works to help Republicans get elected with his actions.
|
Seems like he bursted into the room and tried to confront her out of turn and he was briefly detained by secret service because he bursted into the room and was advancing toward the person they are supposed to protect.
Or as the media will probably frame it, "Senator attacked for asking a question at a press conference"
|
United States24650 Posts
Detaining a Senator who has been removed from the VIPs room usually doesn't require lowering them to the ground and handcuffing them. That is, unless you're not worried about furthering the "slipping into authoritarianism" image, I guess.
|
I mean, you could just watch the video and see that there was literally nothing threatening about what Padilla was doing, or you could say it "seems like" he did something completely different from what people who have eyes saw. Your choice.
|
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
On June 13 2025 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 06:12 Luolis wrote:
What you guys have to understand is that for once GH is right. The only effective way to stop the fascist takeover of America is to fight back actively. These people don't care about being proven right or wrong, they just want to hurt other people. Think it's a bit more often than that, but I'll take it. Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah the Teaparty was basically political Jihad. And it worked extremely well. All the somewhat reasonable people had a choice between the party imploding or agreeing with everything Sarah Palin said. The left could stand to learn from them. Democrat leaders are choosing to implode (one example being going against their voters and independents on supporting genocide) because they fear socialists (even social democrats really) being in charge more than they fear fascists being in charge. That's one reason why I try to get people recognize Democrats are actually part of the opposition to their desired politics (even if they are tepid social democratic politics).
I don’t think either are especially news to many in the thread.
Speaking only personally, my calculus was:
1. More shit needs to change, outside ye olde election. Winning it is insufficient, we need those mass movements pushing things etc.
2. Ye olde electoralism and legality is deficient in curbing a Fascism that gets in situ. It can prevent that happening in the first place.
3. Leftist politics don’t tend to prosper under Fascist regimes, which is a problem if we loop back to (1).
4. The US doesn’t have as strong a tradition of popular mass political movements as some other nations have. If we concede (2) is the case, you’re going to be relying on this alternative. Which is pretty untested in recent times and hope it’s effective.
5. The US has quite a lot of people OK with Fascism, it’s not some tiny minority. Opponents will outnumber that, but they’ll be a rather broad church, and trying to harness that into one direction, difficult but by no means impossible.
6. Losing the election, would hence be a fucking disaster. You have you buddy over, you skip the easy mode on a game they’ve never played, and go straight to hard mode in something they’re untested in. Maybe they rise to the challenge, maybe not.
Now, others may entirely disagree with my calculus. Or have something similar but with certain modifications. But that was mine, and how I became basically a ‘…blue no matter who’ Smurf for the tail end of that cycle.
Vanquish that threat, in the immediate. Do the other stuff to improve things in and around that singular, pressing problem.
I think we’re often aligned ideologically, sometimes not. Perhaps I don my pessimist pragmatist hat a bit more often.
Fight Fascism now, Socialism later, would be my broad brush summation of my position.
You spent basically an entire electoral cycle complaining about Democrats, your personal red lines and talking about the need for a socialist revolution. Then once the election concluded, it shifted to this ‘why aren’t we talking more about how to stop Fascism? Look the election is over, let’s not analyse it’
I don’t think there’s anything innately wrong in holding these positions, but you should at least understand how some may find it irritating, and indeed a reticence to engage with your recommendations is as much a judgement on you as it may be the recommendation itself.
Why is that important? If one’s banking a lot in mass political movements counteracting Fascism, one has to be able to build them. If one can’t read the room as it were, or reach out beyond quite strict parameters, it ain’t happening.
Here’s my personal recipe on what it looks like:
1. Some central banner, an umbrella above other splinters as it were.
2. The central pillar as it were, it’s basically single-issue. Maybe it’s couched in something like ye olde Constitution. Something reasonably uncontroversial.
3. Splinters may have their own ideological agendas and can also pursue those.
Very broad Church, keep it simple, you might have a shot.
In terms of the future direction of the Democratic Party, I’m adopting that wait and see approach you love :p Everyone and their dog has a theory here. Between pivoting leftwards economically, thru pivoting centre and dropping the ‘woke’ stuff, and all sorts in between.
Someone’s gotta be wrong here, and for once I hope it’s me! Rather than galvanise people to realise things are broken, we can do better, I fear the election of Trump has dampened expectations as to what’s possible, and with that as the alternative, a return to uninspired centrist politics gains a new sheen of attractiveness.
|
On June 13 2025 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Seems like he bursted into the room and tried to confront her out of turn and he was briefly detained by secret service because he bursted into the room and was advancing toward the person they are supposed to protect. Or as the media will probably frame it, "Senator attacked for asking a question at a press conference"
I am going to assume you did not see the video of him being handcuffed on the ground. Which is understandable since this is very recent news. But I don't think its possible for you to make this post after seeing that video. If this was made before seeing that video, please do not feel like you need to buckle down on this perspective after seeing it.
|
On June 13 2025 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 06:12 Luolis wrote:
What you guys have to understand is that for once GH is right. The only effective way to stop the fascist takeover of America is to fight back actively. These people don't care about being proven right or wrong, they just want to hurt other people. Think it's a bit more often than that, but I'll take it. Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah the Teaparty was basically political Jihad. And it worked extremely well. All the somewhat reasonable people had a choice between the party imploding or agreeing with everything Sarah Palin said. The left could stand to learn from them. Democrat leaders are choosing to implode (one example being going against their voters and independents on supporting genocide) because they fear socialists (even social democrats really) being in charge more than they fear fascists being in charge. That's one reason why I try to get people recognize Democrats are actually part of the opposition to their desired politics (even if they are tepid social democratic politics).
That's part of what I think is funny and depressing. Within the right wing, the moderates are the ones who are cowards and can't imagine throwing away an election. Within the left wing, moderates will gladly burn the house down and let the pieces fall where they will, because they have no actual moral or philosophical ties to politics. They have pathways to continue generating lots of income regardless of what happens to democrats. Modern leftists have deep moral convictions and feel committed to improving lives. They can't stomach the idea of holding firm and letting the house burn down.
And when I say modern leftists, I'm being very generous and broad. I don't just mean the Jasmine types. Even the Ron Wyden types are bending the knee and being cowards. The entire party is held hostage by people who truly feel zero investment in how the country is run and they don't have any moral framework.
|
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
On June 13 2025 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Seems like he bursted into the room and tried to confront her out of turn and he was briefly detained by secret service because he bursted into the room and was advancing toward the person they are supposed to protect. Or as the media will probably frame it, "Senator attacked for asking a question at a press conference"
‘I’m a Senator I have a right to be here’
‘Ok sir just sit down over there and we’ll see if that checks out’.
Or *shouts over* ‘Oi love, this cunt a Senator?’
‘Aye’
‘On your way sir, sorry about that’
Or *Kristi Noem rolls eyes and sighs*
‘Boys let him through, he’s a Senator’
Yes, the Secret Service have a primary job to do, and I imagine it’s a tough one. I could go on but it feels there’s about 50 better ways to handle this one.
|
On June 13 2025 09:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Seems like he bursted into the room and tried to confront her out of turn and he was briefly detained by secret service because he bursted into the room and was advancing toward the person they are supposed to protect. Or as the media will probably frame it, "Senator attacked for asking a question at a press conference" ‘I’m a Senator I have a right to be here’ ‘Ok sir just sit down over there and we’ll see if that checks out’. Or *shouts over* ‘Oi love, this cunt a Senator?’ ‘Aye’ ‘On your way sir, sorry about that’ Or *Kristi Noem rolls eyes and sighs* ‘Boys let him through, he’s a Senator’ Yes, the Secret Service have a primary job to do, and I imagine it’s a tough one. I could go on but it feels there’s about 50 better ways to handle this one.
No offense but it’s incredibly naive to think he would have accepted “ok sir sit down over there and we’ll see if that checks out.” If he wanted to sit down and wait his turn to speak he had that option to begin with. You don’t burst in and make your way to the podium out of turn. It’s political theater. The whole point of causing the scene and trying to shove through people is to pretend to be a martyr that was brutalized. The we can hand wring the Trump administration for breaking norms and decorums while ignoring that rushing the podium out of turn at someone else’s press conference is breaking norms and decorums.
|
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
On June 13 2025 08:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2025 06:12 Luolis wrote:
What you guys have to understand is that for once GH is right. The only effective way to stop the fascist takeover of America is to fight back actively. These people don't care about being proven right or wrong, they just want to hurt other people. Think it's a bit more often than that, but I'll take it. On June 13 2025 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah the Teaparty was basically political Jihad. And it worked extremely well. All the somewhat reasonable people had a choice between the party imploding or agreeing with everything Sarah Palin said. The left could stand to learn from them. Democrat leaders are choosing to implode (one example being going against their voters and independents on supporting genocide) because they fear socialists (even social democrats really) being in charge more than they fear fascists being in charge. That's one reason why I try to get people recognize Democrats are actually part of the opposition to their desired politics (even if they are tepid social democratic politics). That's part of what I think is funny and depressing. Within the right wing, the moderates are the ones who are cowards and can't imagine throwing away an election. Within the left wing, moderates will gladly burn the house down and let the pieces fall where they will, because they have no actual moral or philosophical ties to politics. They have pathways to continue generating lots of income regardless of what happens to democrats. Modern leftists have deep moral convictions and feel committed to improving lives. They can't stomach the idea of holding firm and letting the house burn down. And when I say modern leftists, I'm being very generous and broad. I don't just mean the Jasmine types. Even the Ron Wyden types are bending the knee and being cowards. The entire party is held hostage by people who truly feel zero investment in how the country is run and they don't have any moral framework.
I don’t think this is correct in a wider sense. It may be for particular individuals and organisations, absolutely. I think you’re correct in terms of some of the machinery.
It’s not my moral framework, but many stick to more moderate positions because of their morals, not in spite of them.
Some people genuinely believe in their milquetoast centrism, just as much as I do about more leftist positions. ‘Adopt my radical politics so we can win the next election(s)’ is as much of a moral compromise for them as it would be (and frequently is) to get a ‘Suck up your radical politics so we can win this one.’
Which I think is something of a blind spot and unless corrected, it makes things more difficult to cross certain divides and convince people.
|
On June 13 2025 09:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 08:58 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2025 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2025 06:12 Luolis wrote:
What you guys have to understand is that for once GH is right. The only effective way to stop the fascist takeover of America is to fight back actively. These people don't care about being proven right or wrong, they just want to hurt other people. Think it's a bit more often than that, but I'll take it. On June 13 2025 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah the Teaparty was basically political Jihad. And it worked extremely well. All the somewhat reasonable people had a choice between the party imploding or agreeing with everything Sarah Palin said. The left could stand to learn from them. Democrat leaders are choosing to implode (one example being going against their voters and independents on supporting genocide) because they fear socialists (even social democrats really) being in charge more than they fear fascists being in charge. That's one reason why I try to get people recognize Democrats are actually part of the opposition to their desired politics (even if they are tepid social democratic politics). That's part of what I think is funny and depressing. Within the right wing, the moderates are the ones who are cowards and can't imagine throwing away an election. Within the left wing, moderates will gladly burn the house down and let the pieces fall where they will, because they have no actual moral or philosophical ties to politics. They have pathways to continue generating lots of income regardless of what happens to democrats. Modern leftists have deep moral convictions and feel committed to improving lives. They can't stomach the idea of holding firm and letting the house burn down. And when I say modern leftists, I'm being very generous and broad. I don't just mean the Jasmine types. Even the Ron Wyden types are bending the knee and being cowards. The entire party is held hostage by people who truly feel zero investment in how the country is run and they don't have any moral framework. I don’t think this is correct in a wider sense. It may be for particular individuals and organisations, absolutely. I think you’re correct in terms of some of the machinery. It’s not my moral framework, but many stick to more moderate positions because of their morals, not in spite of them. Some people genuinely believe in their milquetoast centrism, just as much as I do about more leftist positions. ‘Adopt my radical politics so we can win the next election(s)’ is as much of a moral compromise for them as it would be (and frequently is) to get a ‘Suck up your radical politics so we can win this one.’ Which I think is something of a blind spot and unless corrected, it makes things more difficult to cross certain divides and convince people.
Sorry, I realize I was very non-specific in my wording. But everything I said in that post is strictly related to elected politicians in the US.
|
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
On June 13 2025 09:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 09:02 WombaT wrote:On June 13 2025 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Seems like he bursted into the room and tried to confront her out of turn and he was briefly detained by secret service because he bursted into the room and was advancing toward the person they are supposed to protect. Or as the media will probably frame it, "Senator attacked for asking a question at a press conference" ‘I’m a Senator I have a right to be here’ ‘Ok sir just sit down over there and we’ll see if that checks out’. Or *shouts over* ‘Oi love, this cunt a Senator?’ ‘Aye’ ‘On your way sir, sorry about that’ Or *Kristi Noem rolls eyes and sighs* ‘Boys let him through, he’s a Senator’ Yes, the Secret Service have a primary job to do, and I imagine it’s a tough one. I could go on but it feels there’s about 50 better ways to handle this one. No offense but it’s incredibly naive to think he would have accepted “ok sir sit down over there and we’ll see if that checks out.” If he wanted to sit down and wait his turn to speak he had that option to begin with. You don’t burst in and make your way to the podium out of turn. It’s political theater. The whole point of causing the scene and trying to shove through people is to pretend to be a martyr that was brutalized. The we can hand wring the Trump administration for breaking norms and decorums while ignoring that rushing the podium out of turn at someone else’s press conference is breaking norms and decorums.
Did they try it?
If the Secret Service did what I suggested, on camera and he then acted like an arse he loses a lot of martyr points.
I’ve only seen the one brief clip, it appears in that one he basically wanted to get into the room and to shout something from somewhere within that room. It didn’t appear he was rushing the podium. If there’s other footage I’ve not seen that shows that, I stand corrected.
I don’t think it’s the biggest deal in the world, and the Secret Service aren’t regular police.
But at a presser related to other accusations of law enforcement excessiveness, someone shows up claiming to be a Senator, of all the times to exercise restraint of some kind it’s got to be up there.
Even if we assume he had entirely intended to do this to make a performative point, you’ve handed him it on a silver fucking platter.
If that was his plan, well it bloody well worked. Most folks aren’t going nitpick it down to the nosehairs
|
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
On June 13 2025 09:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 09:14 WombaT wrote:On June 13 2025 08:58 Mohdoo wrote:On June 13 2025 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2025 06:12 Luolis wrote:
What you guys have to understand is that for once GH is right. The only effective way to stop the fascist takeover of America is to fight back actively. These people don't care about being proven right or wrong, they just want to hurt other people. Think it's a bit more often than that, but I'll take it. On June 13 2025 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah the Teaparty was basically political Jihad. And it worked extremely well. All the somewhat reasonable people had a choice between the party imploding or agreeing with everything Sarah Palin said. The left could stand to learn from them. Democrat leaders are choosing to implode (one example being going against their voters and independents on supporting genocide) because they fear socialists (even social democrats really) being in charge more than they fear fascists being in charge. That's one reason why I try to get people recognize Democrats are actually part of the opposition to their desired politics (even if they are tepid social democratic politics). That's part of what I think is funny and depressing. Within the right wing, the moderates are the ones who are cowards and can't imagine throwing away an election. Within the left wing, moderates will gladly burn the house down and let the pieces fall where they will, because they have no actual moral or philosophical ties to politics. They have pathways to continue generating lots of income regardless of what happens to democrats. Modern leftists have deep moral convictions and feel committed to improving lives. They can't stomach the idea of holding firm and letting the house burn down. And when I say modern leftists, I'm being very generous and broad. I don't just mean the Jasmine types. Even the Ron Wyden types are bending the knee and being cowards. The entire party is held hostage by people who truly feel zero investment in how the country is run and they don't have any moral framework. I don’t think this is correct in a wider sense. It may be for particular individuals and organisations, absolutely. I think you’re correct in terms of some of the machinery. It’s not my moral framework, but many stick to more moderate positions because of their morals, not in spite of them. Some people genuinely believe in their milquetoast centrism, just as much as I do about more leftist positions. ‘Adopt my radical politics so we can win the next election(s)’ is as much of a moral compromise for them as it would be (and frequently is) to get a ‘Suck up your radical politics so we can win this one.’ Which I think is something of a blind spot and unless corrected, it makes things more difficult to cross certain divides and convince people. Sorry, I realize I was very non-specific in my wording. But everything I said in that post is strictly related to elected politicians in the US.
Clarification appreciated!
|
Hegseth probably quivering with anticipation hoping a toilet on some base in the Middle East overflows or something so he can authorize a strike on Iran
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
