|
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 17 2025 19:21 oBlade wrote:Wow that is seriously fucking alarming. I couldn't put in any better than the former Pentagon lawyer from the article who for some reason isn't a Pentagon lawyer anymore: Show nested quote +A former Pentagon lawyer who left the job last month told CNN the gathering was “incredibly problematic.” Absolutely problematic. The next thing you know, the military will put a chaplain in every unit or something. That was unthinkable before MAGA. And they'll be there "promoting" Christianity instead of the gospel of Zoroaster.
Why don't you think it's important for our political leaders to follow the Constitution?
|
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
On June 17 2025 17:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Thank goodness it was voluntary. I'm curious about this part: "A brochure titled “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service” featured the seal of the Department of Defense, suggesting that Hegseth and the government sponsored it, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, now a law professor, told CNN. That could be a breach of the First Amendment’s ban on the government promoting a religion." Christian prayer groups are generally fine legally, but they probably shouldn't be using government seals to imply the government is sponsoring and promoting Christianity in particular, right?
Hegseth’s response is pretty illuminating. Head to Twitter and claim people are against God. As you do!
I’m perfectly fine with provisions for worship, especially for religions with specific rituals. Just don’t make it an official thing.
It’s a nothingburger for me if the response was ‘hey I’ll keep doing the prayer thing but point taken on certain criticisms, I’ll tweak a few things.’
That’s almost never the response. (Also lmao my phone genuinely autocorrected a typo to ‘case sober’ there, feels apt)
Certain conservatives, and seemingly a growing amount in prominence appear to want a state religion, while basing a lot of their other arguments in ye olde sacred Constitution.
You cannae do both.
|
United States24690 Posts
On June 17 2025 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 19:21 oBlade wrote:Wow that is seriously fucking alarming. I couldn't put in any better than the former Pentagon lawyer from the article who for some reason isn't a Pentagon lawyer anymore: A former Pentagon lawyer who left the job last month told CNN the gathering was “incredibly problematic.” Absolutely problematic. The next thing you know, the military will put a chaplain in every unit or something. That was unthinkable before MAGA. And they'll be there "promoting" Christianity instead of the gospel of Zoroaster. Why don't you think it's important for our political leaders to follow the Constitution?
They are ignorantly or intentionally drawing a false equivalence between Hegseth’s clearly-endorsed Christian prayer sessions for the greater Pentagon population and religious services provided to Service Members who have limited access otherwise.
|
Northern Ireland25468 Posts
On June 17 2025 12:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 10:02 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2025 08:38 Introvert wrote:On June 17 2025 04:38 Zambrah wrote:On June 17 2025 03:21 LightSpectra wrote:
I have never found it helpful to frame Democratic voters as being overwhelmingly progressive and elected Democrats as being overwhelmingly liberal centrists. The reality seems to consistently be that about half the voters are centrists and a little over half of elected Democrats are centrists. There genuinely were a lot of people excited about Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden and afraid Bernie Sanders was too radical.
We can just pretend those people don't exist and blame the DNC/donors for everything wrong with Democrats, but why? We should take advantage of the fact that most Democrats are Vote Blue No Matter Who Centrists, and those sort of centrists are the ones who take issue with the more principle focused progressive/leftist voters. We can safely say that the Vote Blue No Matter Who types arent worth pandering too because theyve said time and time again that theyll just always vote for Democrats, so instead of trying to pander to them, Democrats should pander to the left, particularly the left's very popular policies. Stop appealing to Republicans, stop moderating and conservatizing, be bold, be optimistic, appeal to the popular policies that the left espouses, universal healthcare, stomping down big business, big tech, all of these abusive corporations, money in politics, fight for the working class, and get people excited for a brighter, better future instead of depressing people by compromising with fascists who your voting base vehemently understands as fascists. Dont pretend the world around people doesn't feel bad, that just "its not as bad as it could be" is inspiring, or makes people actually feel any better about their circumstances. Christ, if Democrats could just do anything but double down on their same-old same-old lost to Donald Trump's awful ass two times playbook. I'm going to repsond because I know there are other people who believe this, but it's a crazy thing to think after the last decade of elections. Twice Trump breaks the blue wall and along the way in 2025 sees a massive swing his way in from Hispanic moderate voters and younger voters in particular. yet the myth of "we just need to energize our base" won't die. The 2000s called and want their taking point back. Dems now win the single most consistent voting block(s): white college graduates and the older subset of Boomers. Meanwhile, Biden the "moderate" (as he was portrayed) actually won against Trump. Some people are stuck in the same political fantasy land Dems were in almost two decades ago. And saying that Dems moderated when voters viewed Harris as further to the left than Trump to the right is also going to need a better argument. Trump broke with Republican orthodoxy on key points and it's helped him every time, but somehow a hard left swing will do the job. Remember, when Kamala was waffling on her record in 2024 it's not thst her "moderating" lost her votes, it's that no one believed her. Yeah I’d broadly agree although, I’m not sure it’s a myth so much as an untested hypothetical. Strategy A may be the best strategy, but if you don’t try strategy B well, assuming it’s not insane on paper, how do you know? In the British context this was much of my frustration about Corbyn winning the Labour leadership contest and getting relentlessly sandbagged by the centre of the party. He’s got a mandate, play ball. It’s always the demand when it’s a centrist, give him a fair crack and if he fails, it’s a pretty big indicator that pivoting left doesn’t work in that context. The US context is different again of course. Trump broke with Republican orthodoxy every time because for a decent chunk of those voters it’s a cult. The Dems don’t have any comparable figure. While technically not a Dem anyway, Sanders has some leftist credentials and some popularity amongst that cohort. But he only has that so long as he maintains his bona fides. Integrity is his main appeal. I would agree that Harris, not a great candidate in terms of the intangibles. Maybe unfair, maybe not but perception counts for a lot and I never really liked her, she doesn’t feel especially sincere as a person. I think Hillary Clinton had that problem as well, but unlike Harris (your mileage may vary), I think Clinton at least had competent technocrat going for her. Was an odd campaign anyway, Democratic strategists and staffers are fucking stealing a living if you ask me. Even if we entirely sidestep the whole Biden competence question. I did not know Walz before the campaign. He got introduced, political disagreements aside I found him quite bloody likeable, and kinda the perfect guy for the job. Something of the everyman about him, moral without being too lecturing or pious, competent without seeming elitist. After a strong start he seemed to get shelved for, some reason? It felt like ‘hey here’s Tim’ and people quite liked the lad. Rather than run with that they decided, not to? For some reason. It’s fucking bizarre. Whole campaign was. Not even from my own personal politics, if we assume the winning ground is the centre with a little room leftwards, and the usual bullshit optics count, awful campaign. Stealing a living as I said. Really shouldn’t be that difficult. You can run from the centre if you want, just do it competently. Throw the left a bone or two, say idk Bernie Sanders will get a health gig, Elizabeth Warren some financial regulatory gig, things they’ve got bona fides on. Democratic strategy is fucking awful, to an almost inexplicable degree. " Trump broke with Republican orthodox every time because for a decent chunk of those voters it’s a cult. The Dems don’t have any comparable figure. While technically not a Dem anyway, Sanders has some leftist credentials and some popularity amongst that cohort. But he only has that so long as he maintains his bona fides. Integrity is his main appeal." Bolded - and thats what won him election? Italic - disagree: they just didnt have anywhere else to go? bolded italic - You contradicting yourself. Because Dems did have the comparable figure (in Bernie) and then they went "yeah f that", and now they squirm.
I don’t think Sanders is all that comparable to Trump. There simply isn’t a particularly comparable figure to him amongst the left in the US.
When it comes to a Presidential it’s not like the left have many more options. It doesn’t stop them being critical of their own tickets. And maybe changing their vote, or not turning out to begin with. Too left, not left enough, a particular stance on a particular issue or whatever.
My point re Trump is that he didn’t merely break with orthodoxy, and appeal to new demographics in new ways, which he did. He pissed on basically all of it, and people were either fine with it or not vocal in opposition.
It’s all rather cult-like. I don’t think the current wider left in the US could emulate it if they tried. Other conservative parties in other places don’t see this phenomenon either.
|
On June 17 2025 20:32 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 19:21 oBlade wrote:Wow that is seriously fucking alarming. I couldn't put in any better than the former Pentagon lawyer from the article who for some reason isn't a Pentagon lawyer anymore: A former Pentagon lawyer who left the job last month told CNN the gathering was “incredibly problematic.” Absolutely problematic. The next thing you know, the military will put a chaplain in every unit or something. That was unthinkable before MAGA. And they'll be there "promoting" Christianity instead of the gospel of Zoroaster. Why don't you think it's important for our political leaders to follow the Constitution? They are ignorantly or intentionally drawing a false equivalence between Hegseth’s clearly-endorsed Christian prayer sessions for the greater Pentagon population and religious services provided to Service Members who have limited access otherwise.
It's intentional.
I hope you deciding to not attend doesn't cause any adverse effects for you. I would imagine it was/will be poorly attended like the pity parade.
|
On June 17 2025 20:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 17:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Thank goodness it was voluntary. I'm curious about this part: "A brochure titled “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service” featured the seal of the Department of Defense, suggesting that Hegseth and the government sponsored it, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, now a law professor, told CNN. That could be a breach of the First Amendment’s ban on the government promoting a religion." Christian prayer groups are generally fine legally, but they probably shouldn't be using government seals to imply the government is sponsoring and promoting Christianity in particular, right? Hegseth’s response is pretty illuminating. Head to Twitter and claim people are against God. As you do! I’m perfectly fine with provisions for worship, especially for religions with specific rituals. Just don’t make it an official thing. It’s a nothingburger for me if the response was ‘hey I’ll keep doing the prayer thing but point taken on certain criticisms, I’ll tweak a few things.’ That’s almost never the response. (Also lmao my phone genuinely autocorrected a typo to ‘case sober’ there, feels apt) Certain conservatives, and seemingly a growing amount in prominence appear to want a state religion, while basing a lot of their other arguments in ye olde sacred Constitution. You cannae do both.
Agreed. It's not like the 1st Amendment makes a special exception for Christianity, and we know that Republicans would suddenly lose their shit if Islam or Buddhism or Pastafarianism was suddenly backed by the federal government.
On June 17 2025 20:32 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 19:21 oBlade wrote:Wow that is seriously fucking alarming. I couldn't put in any better than the former Pentagon lawyer from the article who for some reason isn't a Pentagon lawyer anymore: A former Pentagon lawyer who left the job last month told CNN the gathering was “incredibly problematic.” Absolutely problematic. The next thing you know, the military will put a chaplain in every unit or something. That was unthinkable before MAGA. And they'll be there "promoting" Christianity instead of the gospel of Zoroaster. Why don't you think it's important for our political leaders to follow the Constitution? They are ignorantly or intentionally drawing a false equivalence between Hegseth’s clearly-endorsed Christian prayer sessions for the greater Pentagon population and religious services provided to Service Members who have limited access otherwise.
While I try to initially give the benefit of the doubt - assuming sincere ignorance instead of malicious intent, as per Hanlon's Razor - I think my patience has worn extremely thin with the sheer number of honest mistakes (purposeful misrepresentations?).
|
On June 17 2025 20:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 20:08 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2025 17:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Thank goodness it was voluntary. I'm curious about this part: "A brochure titled “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service” featured the seal of the Department of Defense, suggesting that Hegseth and the government sponsored it, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, now a law professor, told CNN. That could be a breach of the First Amendment’s ban on the government promoting a religion." Christian prayer groups are generally fine legally, but they probably shouldn't be using government seals to imply the government is sponsoring and promoting Christianity in particular, right? Hegseth’s response is pretty illuminating. Head to Twitter and claim people are against God. As you do! I’m perfectly fine with provisions for worship, especially for religions with specific rituals. Just don’t make it an official thing. It’s a nothingburger for me if the response was ‘hey I’ll keep doing the prayer thing but point taken on certain criticisms, I’ll tweak a few things.’ That’s almost never the response. (Also lmao my phone genuinely autocorrected a typo to ‘case sober’ there, feels apt) Certain conservatives, and seemingly a growing amount in prominence appear to want a state religion, while basing a lot of their other arguments in ye olde sacred Constitution. You cannae do both. Agreed. It's not like the 1st Amendment makes a special exception for Christianity, and we know that Republicans would suddenly lose their shit if Islam or Buddhism or Pastafarianism was suddenly backed by the federal government.
In fact, they did that maybe a week ago with the Sikh guy who lead prayer in congress. Because they thought he was a muslim.
Edit: But, of course, we have seen this again, and we can once again post the Sartre quote about antisemites and using words. The fascists don't care about consistency or principles, they care only about winning.
|
On June 17 2025 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 19:21 oBlade wrote:Wow that is seriously fucking alarming. I couldn't put in any better than the former Pentagon lawyer from the article who for some reason isn't a Pentagon lawyer anymore: A former Pentagon lawyer who left the job last month told CNN the gathering was “incredibly problematic.” Absolutely problematic. The next thing you know, the military will put a chaplain in every unit or something. That was unthinkable before MAGA. And they'll be there "promoting" Christianity instead of the gospel of Zoroaster. Why don't you think it's important for our political leaders to follow the Constitution?
Probably the same reason you haven't stopped beating your wife. What a cynical leading question. As though something like a prayer group were on the same level as dissolving Congress or not holding an election or something.
Religion appears in all of 1 phrase in the Constitution. It is nowhere near as specific as "Pete Hegseth can't have a monthly prayer meeting." You've got the "freedom from religion" part of the interpretation down pat, you're lacking on perspective of the "freedom of" part. For that, expand with centuries of statutes and case law about the issue. For example, civil rights law says you can pray at your job. I'm pretty sure that's the same if your job is at the government. I'm pretty sure that applies even if you're one of the bosses. That's why it's not a Constitutional violation requiring impeachment every time a President holds a prayer in his speech, or says grace at the White House dinner, and why the Sikh representative wasn't removed and arrested. And I'm pretty sure, say, a chess club is okay. I don't see a prayer group can be... especially wrong? What's any other actual related law or case say? Any parallel examples? If he can do it, and do it in a government room with government chairs and government lights, but not put his title in front of his name or use government stationery, I mean, okay, what a flagrant Constitutional violation that is.
A lot of what's getting talked about is what-ifs. If you got fired or missed a promotion because of religious reasons, that would be a reason to sue. But it's not a reason before that. Before that it could only be an issue like "I wanted to start a Buddhist prayer group also but they didn't give us a conference room" and so on. Just like opening a restaurant and not letting black people in would be illegal, but we don't ban people from opening restaurants just because having a restaurant is a prerequisite of banning black people from it.
|
|
|
On June 17 2025 22:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 19:21 oBlade wrote:Wow that is seriously fucking alarming. I couldn't put in any better than the former Pentagon lawyer from the article who for some reason isn't a Pentagon lawyer anymore: A former Pentagon lawyer who left the job last month told CNN the gathering was “incredibly problematic.” Absolutely problematic. The next thing you know, the military will put a chaplain in every unit or something. That was unthinkable before MAGA. And they'll be there "promoting" Christianity instead of the gospel of Zoroaster. Why don't you think it's important for our political leaders to follow the Constitution? Probably the same reason you haven't stopped beating your wife. What a cynical leading question. As though something like a prayer group were on the same level as dissolving Congress or not holding an election or something.
Your ability to create a leading question doesn't mean my question was also leading. Your flippant, sarcastic attitude towards a violation of the 1st Amendment is what prompted me to ask why you don't care about following the Constitution.
You claiming that the federal government favoring Christianity isn't as bad as "dissolving Congress or not holding an election" does not mean that the federal government favoring Christianity is legal. You might as well just say that breaking laws are no big deal as long as they don't rise to the level of murder or treason or [insert whatever you consider to be the worst case scenario here]. There are different levels, and the 1st Amendment's establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing or favoring or promoting a particular religion.
I don't care if Pete Hegseth wants to hold a Christian service or a prayer group; I do care when he calls it "Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service" and uses the seal of the Department of Defense, because that's changing the scope from "private citizen" to "government promoted", which is illegal.
|
I do not think it is wise at this point to believe eithers intel at face value. Sad truth is we will never know and no matter what they said we rightfully wouldn't believe. Not only because it was Tulsi but mainly because of Iraq.
|
On June 17 2025 22:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 22:04 oBlade wrote:On June 17 2025 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 19:21 oBlade wrote:Wow that is seriously fucking alarming. I couldn't put in any better than the former Pentagon lawyer from the article who for some reason isn't a Pentagon lawyer anymore: A former Pentagon lawyer who left the job last month told CNN the gathering was “incredibly problematic.” Absolutely problematic. The next thing you know, the military will put a chaplain in every unit or something. That was unthinkable before MAGA. And they'll be there "promoting" Christianity instead of the gospel of Zoroaster. Why don't you think it's important for our political leaders to follow the Constitution? Probably the same reason you haven't stopped beating your wife. What a cynical leading question. As though something like a prayer group were on the same level as dissolving Congress or not holding an election or something. Your ability to create a leading question doesn't mean my question was also leading. Your flippant, sarcastic attitude towards a violation of the 1st Amendment is what prompted me to ask why you don't care about following the Constitution. You claiming that the federal government favoring Christianity isn't as bad as "dissolving Congress or not holding an election" does not mean that the federal government favoring Christianity is legal. You might as well just say that breaking laws are no big deal as long as they don't rise to the level of murder or treason or [insert whatever you consider to be the worst case scenario here]. There are different levels, and the 1st Amendment's establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing or favoring or promoting a particular religion. I don't care if Pete Hegseth wants to hold a Christian service or a prayer group; I do care when he calls it " Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service" and uses the seal of the Department of Defense, because that's changing the scope from "private citizen" to "government promoted", which is illegal.
I understand you think it's illegal. Do you have an actual parallel example.
|
On June 17 2025 21:20 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 20:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 20:08 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2025 17:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Thank goodness it was voluntary. I'm curious about this part: "A brochure titled “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service” featured the seal of the Department of Defense, suggesting that Hegseth and the government sponsored it, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, now a law professor, told CNN. That could be a breach of the First Amendment’s ban on the government promoting a religion." Christian prayer groups are generally fine legally, but they probably shouldn't be using government seals to imply the government is sponsoring and promoting Christianity in particular, right? Hegseth’s response is pretty illuminating. Head to Twitter and claim people are against God. As you do! I’m perfectly fine with provisions for worship, especially for religions with specific rituals. Just don’t make it an official thing. It’s a nothingburger for me if the response was ‘hey I’ll keep doing the prayer thing but point taken on certain criticisms, I’ll tweak a few things.’ That’s almost never the response. (Also lmao my phone genuinely autocorrected a typo to ‘case sober’ there, feels apt) Certain conservatives, and seemingly a growing amount in prominence appear to want a state religion, while basing a lot of their other arguments in ye olde sacred Constitution. You cannae do both. Agreed. It's not like the 1st Amendment makes a special exception for Christianity, and we know that Republicans would suddenly lose their shit if Islam or Buddhism or Pastafarianism was suddenly backed by the federal government. In fact, they did that maybe a week ago with the Sikh guy who lead prayer in congress. Because they thought he was a muslim. Edit: But, of course, we have seen this again, and we can once again post the Sartre quote about antisemites and using words. The fascists don't care about consistency or principles, they care only about winning.
I prefer Zam's
On June 09 2025 14:51 Zambrah wrote:
I’m gonna make this my last comment on the arguing with the completely disingenuous right wingers thing, but if you see someone arguing with a squirrel at the park, the only one who looks crazy is the person arguing with a squirrel
It's not just embarrassing for those indulging the fascists though, it's quite counterproductive.
On March 26 2025 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2025 06:06 Laurens wrote:
Vance also visiting Greenland now.
They’re not really going to annex it right, right? I'm leaning towards No - I think Trump is mostly just posturing and trying to show off how he can threaten everyone and still be untouchable - but who knows? If someone was going to arbitrarily decide to invade allied countries and destroy our relationships with the rest of the world, it would obviously be Trump. Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 20:33 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2025 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2025 07:30 Luolis wrote:
Imagine being Hillary right now :D Obama and Clinton and Biden and Harris were right about everything Trump-related. Always have been, always will be. LibHorizons: Except for the most important things; being the right people/having the correct politics to beat him. Also Clinton's Pied Piper thing is a pretty big exception that also helped make Trump president. What is the charge of this Pied Piper thing? It seems to read much like the various campaigns were somewhat blindsided by Trump at every new hurdle he cleared, and thought he’d be a lock to beat in a Presidential. Which, to be fair, most of us were thinking at the time. “I admit to being suckered into every narrative that predicted Trump’s demise over and over,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Clinton ally. “I admittedly was a pretty consistent skeptic that they were ultimately going to nominate this buffoon, so I probably came to the realization that he was the nominee as late as anybody."
“I was in denial for a very long time,” added former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the one-time presidential candidate and DNC chair. “I tell people I was wrong for 52 weeks in a row starting in June.”
That aside it seems a bit rich to simultaneously be digging up the failings of the 2016 campaign, and sidestepping awkward questions on 2024 with a ‘we have to move on folks, what are we doing now?’ I’ve no issues with either but be consistent on this at least. + Show Spoiler +LibHorizons: Hillary literally intentionally helped Trump become the nominee, and therefore, president. So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up.
“... can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. ...we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” Republicans moving right under Trump's leadership was deliberately encouraged by Clinton and her campaign. Instead of making them easier to beat and Hillary Clinton president like she thought it would, it made Republicans more effective at stripping people of their rights with Democrats help. Hillary made possibly the biggest political mistake of our lives and it's quite the exception to always being right about Trump. It came up because of DPB's ahistorical Third Way bootlicking. It only emboldens Third Way dead enders in the fight for the future of the party that my fellow libs/Dems/ilk seem largely unwilling/incapable of engaging with at any length. LibHorizons: Case in point. You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it. That's not an opinion, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. That's a choice you all make, and that's your prerogative. However, a major reason it matters is that those choices and the people that make them are among the top reasons (mostly Third Way) Democrats will continue to enable Trump until they are powerless to stop him, if that hasn't already happened. I'm desperately trying to see a way forward with/as Democrats, because it seems that making a viable run with a 3rd/workers' party is all but impossible in the US under these conditions. Unfortunately, all the libs/Dems/ilk that could be discussing how to do that, instead just mock and gawk right winger nonsense/rising fascism like political mean girls. You all are but a tiny offbeat sampling of the people that potentially stand between us and a fascist future, but even us here, in this moment have to get much more serious about how we're going to stop what is happening or we're all actually screwed.
As we all know by now though, they can't help themselves.
|
On June 17 2025 22:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 22:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 22:04 oBlade wrote:On June 17 2025 19:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 19:21 oBlade wrote:Wow that is seriously fucking alarming. I couldn't put in any better than the former Pentagon lawyer from the article who for some reason isn't a Pentagon lawyer anymore: A former Pentagon lawyer who left the job last month told CNN the gathering was “incredibly problematic.” Absolutely problematic. The next thing you know, the military will put a chaplain in every unit or something. That was unthinkable before MAGA. And they'll be there "promoting" Christianity instead of the gospel of Zoroaster. Why don't you think it's important for our political leaders to follow the Constitution? Probably the same reason you haven't stopped beating your wife. What a cynical leading question. As though something like a prayer group were on the same level as dissolving Congress or not holding an election or something. Your ability to create a leading question doesn't mean my question was also leading. Your flippant, sarcastic attitude towards a violation of the 1st Amendment is what prompted me to ask why you don't care about following the Constitution. You claiming that the federal government favoring Christianity isn't as bad as "dissolving Congress or not holding an election" does not mean that the federal government favoring Christianity is legal. You might as well just say that breaking laws are no big deal as long as they don't rise to the level of murder or treason or [insert whatever you consider to be the worst case scenario here]. There are different levels, and the 1st Amendment's establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing or favoring or promoting a particular religion. I don't care if Pete Hegseth wants to hold a Christian service or a prayer group; I do care when he calls it " Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service" and uses the seal of the Department of Defense, because that's changing the scope from "private citizen" to "government promoted", which is illegal. I understand you think it's illegal. Do you have an actual parallel example.
What are you talking about? There's no need for a different example; this is the specific scenario that's happening now, and the Constitution is clear here. You still haven't answered why you think disregarding the Constitution is unproblematic, besides brushing it off as simply not being as harmful as worse scenarios. Why is your line more important, legally speaking, than the line drawn by the 1st Amendment?
|
On June 17 2025 22:21 Billyboy wrote:I do not think it is wise at this point to believe eithers intel at face value. Sad truth is we will never know and no matter what they said we rightfully wouldn't believe. Not only because it was Tulsi but mainly because of Iraq.
Well, one would think that Hegseth/Tulsi would have no issue saying "Iran is thirty minutes from making a nuke" to justify giving Israel a trillion dollars, so the fact that they're undermining their own justification for war is not making Trump's brinkmanship look wise or necessary. Makes it look like he's just letting Netanyahu dominate him for no apparent reason.
|
This is a huge clusterfuck, and I don't see how Israel attacking Iran is going to deter Iran from wanting to build up its own side:
"Now, after days of Israeli airstrikes, US intelligence officials believe that so far, Israel may have set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a matter of months, according to one of those people, a US official. Even as Israel has done significant damage to Iran’s facility at Natanz, which houses centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium, a second, heavily fortified enrichment site at Fordow has remained effectively untouched."
|
|
|
It's also not lost on me that a few sentences later, Mike Huckabee is telling Trump that God will divinely inspire Trump.
|
On June 17 2025 22:21 Billyboy wrote:I do not think it is wise at this point to believe eithers intel at face value. Sad truth is we will never know and no matter what they said we rightfully wouldn't believe. Not only because it was Tulsi but mainly because of Iraq.
It should tell you something about Israel that I'm more likely to believe the US intelligence community.
|
United States42778 Posts
On June 17 2025 22:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's also not lost on me that a few sentences later, Mike Huckabee is telling Trump that God will divinely inspire Trump.
“Go with your gut and it’s probably not your gut but god’s literal will”
Sucks for all the CIA analysts who have spent a lifetime building the expertise so that they can advise the president in this exact scenario. There should be one voice in the room and it’s the one that nobody but Trump can hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
