|
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 22 2025 02:31 Velr wrote:
Uhm, guys... Hate to tell you, but if a countries military is bombing another country thats called war.
Ackchyually, Congress has the sole power to declare war and they haven't done that since WWII, so it can't be war. That would be unconstitutional.
|
I was waiting for oBlade to Ackchyually make this argument.
Maybe he still will.
|
On June 22 2025 02:31 Velr wrote:
Uhm, guys... Hate to tell you, but if a countries military is bombing another country thats called war.
These are different things:
-A nuclear superpower invading 20% of its neighbor
-Going to a country on the other side of the world, destroying its military, toppling its government, occupying it and fighting an insurgency for 20 years
-Dropping bombs on someone who can't attack you back and you are in total control of when and where you fight them, if at all
People do not necessarily want the 3rd but they recognize that it's a harsh reality that could need to occur, and aren't dogmatically opposed to it just because the 2nd was universally panned and they think opposing the 3rd is an expression of their opposition of the 2nd.
|
Any long term plan against Iran either needs them to sign an agreement and you to trust them to hold to it (unlikely after the US broke the last one).
Or continuous spy work and bombing, costly.
Or multilateral agreements (which we had until the US broke them) that puts pressure from all sides to enforce it. So you need China and Russia, preferably more parties, to sign and mean it as well. This is possible but the geopolitical situation isn't exactly good for it right now.
Or break the nation so they cannot afford it and thus killing a few million people due civil war and no good places to evacuate to.
Or get lucky with a government transition, where there are no reliable candidates without massive external support. Even with external support they probably go the route of Afghanistan.
|
On June 22 2025 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 02:04 oBlade wrote:On June 22 2025 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Republicans have been conditioned to approve of whatever their leadership wants to do. They were super anti Russia until the head of their party was a Russian assest, now they are pro Russia. They are anti war until a Republican wants to go to war, then they are pro war. Nobody wants war with Iran. Not Trump. Not even Lindsey Graham and Blumenthal want war. Yeah I’m in the same boat. But after Iran even rejected an offer to be provided with the uranium they need for non-weapons purposes, I’m entirely on board with doing whatever is needed for their enrichment to be wiped out. I think Israel should deal with all the other stuff themselves. But I’m cool with the US stepping in to deal with deep underground facilities to prevent any chance of Iran getting nukes
What is the evidence that Iran presented an immediate (nuclear) threat that warrants a war?
What's changed from the past ~10 years?
|
On June 22 2025 02:31 Velr wrote:
Uhm, guys... Hate to tell you, but if a countries military is bombing another country thats called war.
The label isn’t really important to me, but I do appreciate the correction. I honestly have no idea what is and isn’t considered a war. So I suppose I meant I’m ok with a war where our involvement ends after their entire nuclear program is wiped out. From there, Israel and Iran can do whatever.
|
On June 22 2025 03:53 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On June 22 2025 02:04 oBlade wrote:On June 22 2025 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Republicans have been conditioned to approve of whatever their leadership wants to do. They were super anti Russia until the head of their party was a Russian assest, now they are pro Russia. They are anti war until a Republican wants to go to war, then they are pro war. Nobody wants war with Iran. Not Trump. Not even Lindsey Graham and Blumenthal want war. Yeah I’m in the same boat. But after Iran even rejected an offer to be provided with the uranium they need for non-weapons purposes, I’m entirely on board with doing whatever is needed for their enrichment to be wiped out. I think Israel should deal with all the other stuff themselves. But I’m cool with the US stepping in to deal with deep underground facilities to prevent any chance of Iran getting nukes What is the evidence that Iran presented an immediate (nuclear) threat that warrants a war? What's changed from the past ~10 years?
They have made a whole bunch of enriched uranium (enough for 10 bombs) well beyond the need for non weapons grade. Also the reports keep coming out of them hiding and lying from the IAEA
|
On June 22 2025 03:53 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On June 22 2025 02:04 oBlade wrote:On June 22 2025 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Republicans have been conditioned to approve of whatever their leadership wants to do. They were super anti Russia until the head of their party was a Russian assest, now they are pro Russia. They are anti war until a Republican wants to go to war, then they are pro war. Nobody wants war with Iran. Not Trump. Not even Lindsey Graham and Blumenthal want war. Yeah I’m in the same boat. But after Iran even rejected an offer to be provided with the uranium they need for non-weapons purposes, I’m entirely on board with doing whatever is needed for their enrichment to be wiped out. I think Israel should deal with all the other stuff themselves. But I’m cool with the US stepping in to deal with deep underground facilities to prevent any chance of Iran getting nukes What is the evidence that Iran presented an immediate (nuclear) threat that warrants a war? What's changed from the past ~10 years?
Micronesia explains it well here:
On June 19 2025 09:37 micronesia wrote:The 12 June IAEA Resolution makes it clear that IAEA has found evidence of non-compliant behavior, and Iran has not made a good-faith effort to rectify the situation despite being given every opportunity. However, the 13 June IAEA Statement makes it clear that IAEA does not agree with current military strikes on relevant facilities as appropriate.
There’s nothing other than weapons they’d be using 60%+ for. The IAEA doesn’t recommend military action because blowing it up could cause radiation contamination and whatnot.
Additionally, the US already offered to handle all uranium stuff for them if they kill all the bomb stuff. Iran rejected that, so Iran is (understandably) committed to getting a nuke.
I don’t blame them for trying. It’s basically essential for full, actual sovereignty. But I also don’t want a redneck like Khameini having control over nukes. He cranks the jihad yeehaw up a little too high for my taste
|
On June 22 2025 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 00:35 LightSpectra wrote:On June 22 2025 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2025 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:On June 22 2025 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 23:24 LightSpectra wrote:On June 21 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote:On June 21 2025 07:51 Zambrah wrote:On June 21 2025 07:49 LightSpectra wrote:
So, since you seem to have given basically zero credence to everything I've pointed out, what's your explanation for why Cuomo is outperforming Mamdani by double digits among older BIPOC voters in NYC? Because Mamdani came out of nowhere and Cuomo is extremely famous? Do you have a better explanation than the condescending insinuation that BIPOC voters only care about name recognition? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him. You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition. Ok, but my point was name recognition explains why Cuomo had a 80% lead months ago but how he's at about 50%. + Show Spoiler +But that doesn't explain why certain demographics tend toward him over others, unless you're insinuating that those demographics vote based on nothing except name recognition, which is lazy and prejudiced. There actually is a reason and it behooves us to understand their thought process instead of dismissing them and then being bewildered when your preferred candidate loses the election. This just isn't what happened. On June 01 2025 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 01 2025 04:01 Legan wrote:
Seems really embarrassing for democrats to have Andrew Cuomo be the leading candidate for them in New York. Such a fresh face for them. Wait for after the first debate (which is on June 4). Right now most people are just answering polls based on name recognition. That's not months ago. That's a few weeks ago. Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same as it is now. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/nyc-mayoral-primary-election-polls-2025.htmlI don't know how you're going to try to explain away your bullshit here, but it will be literally incredible. I clicked on your link, Cuomo went from about +30 before the debates to between +13 to -5 now. Which part is the bullshit? What I said. Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same ~55% as it is now. I edited my comment before you replied, sorry about that, but yeah, Cuomo dropped about 20 points in the polls consistently in the past three weeks. Not sure what the issue is. When he was winning every demographic (conservative, liberal, and progressive) I think it was fair to say that early polls are not indicative of anything since nobody else had significant name recognition yet. Now that we're closer to the actual primary election, the question is why people keep breaking toward Cuomo, and the thing I was talking about is that a significant portion of Democrats (over half nationwide it seems) actually do ideologically agree with centrist liberalism, they aren't just voting on name recognition alone, they genuinely think Cuomo would make the best governor. I'm not going to play this game with you. Anyone with any integrity can see what you did, are doing now, and understands why I find it disgusting. At least one of them should call it out. I'll leave it there.
And so the cat, who mewled at us so many times to discuss primarying better Democrats, turned and left with tail in the air once more when people actually tried to.
|
i like good news and i like to be optimistic ...
https://www.aol.com/news/blue-collar-wage-growth-under-141632384.html
however, stats like this can be doctored by including and excluding certain sectors based on changing definitions. The last measurement of the US economy is that it was contracting at 0.2%. WHen Trump took over 6 months ago it was expanding by 2.5%.
" Reaganomics is working... " :D
|
On June 22 2025 06:56 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2025 00:35 LightSpectra wrote:On June 22 2025 00:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2025 00:18 LightSpectra wrote:On June 22 2025 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2025 23:24 LightSpectra wrote:On June 21 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2025 07:52 LightSpectra wrote:On June 21 2025 07:51 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
Because Mamdani came out of nowhere and Cuomo is extremely famous? Do you have a better explanation than the condescending insinuation that BIPOC voters only care about name recognition? In cases like this I legit wonder how many of those supporting Cuomo are even aware of the extent of the allegations against him. You would think it would be impossible not to be as a resident of NY but reality might surprise you. We here are all pretty active on politics but tons of people barely read the news and absolutely do not engage with politics, yet go out to vote on largely name recognition. Ok, but my point was name recognition explains why Cuomo had a 80% lead months ago but how he's at about 50%. + Show Spoiler +But that doesn't explain why certain demographics tend toward him over others, unless you're insinuating that those demographics vote based on nothing except name recognition, which is lazy and prejudiced. There actually is a reason and it behooves us to understand their thought process instead of dismissing them and then being bewildered when your preferred candidate loses the election. This just isn't what happened. On June 01 2025 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 01 2025 04:01 Legan wrote:
Seems really embarrassing for democrats to have Andrew Cuomo be the leading candidate for them in New York. Such a fresh face for them. Wait for after the first debate (which is on June 4). Right now most people are just answering polls based on name recognition. That's not months ago. That's a few weeks ago. Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same as it is now. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/nyc-mayoral-primary-election-polls-2025.htmlI don't know how you're going to try to explain away your bullshit here, but it will be literally incredible. I clicked on your link, Cuomo went from about +30 before the debates to between +13 to -5 now. Which part is the bullshit? What I said. Cuomo was never at "80%", but ~20 days ago when you were making the argument that "most people are just answering polls based on name recognition" Cuomo's polling was basically the same ~55% as it is now. I edited my comment before you replied, sorry about that, but yeah, Cuomo dropped about 20 points in the polls consistently in the past three weeks. Not sure what the issue is. When he was winning every demographic (conservative, liberal, and progressive) I think it was fair to say that early polls are not indicative of anything since nobody else had significant name recognition yet. Now that we're closer to the actual primary election, the question is why people keep breaking toward Cuomo, and the thing I was talking about is that a significant portion of Democrats (over half nationwide it seems) actually do ideologically agree with centrist liberalism, they aren't just voting on name recognition alone, they genuinely think Cuomo would make the best governor. I'm not going to play this game with you. Anyone with any integrity can see what you did, are doing now, and understands why I find it disgusting. At least one of them should call it out. I'll leave it there. And so the cat, who mewled at us so many times to discuss primarying better Democrats, turned and left with tail in the air once more when people actually tried to.
I appreciated the discussion and welcome it to continue. As far as electoral politics and appealing to "blue no matter who" Dems/"swing voters" go, I pretty much just agree with what Zam has been saying
Setting any politics aside, there are too many math/data people here to not know exactly what I'm talking about with Light's bs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
