EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5051
| 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 | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45056 Posts
On June 23 2025 00:10 Mohdoo wrote: This seems like an odd question but it probably means I’ve done a terrible job explaining my perspectives, so sorry for that. The thing that makes Iran distinct from Israel and Russia is Iran not yet having nuclear weapons. Additionally, this was an ideal time to place a permanent power ceiling on Iran because they had an extremely limited ability to use proxies to base race Israel. Hezbollah in particular being mostly irrelevant rather than a significant military power is a rare opportunity. And Russia being tied up in Ukraine. Look at all Iran managed to achieve despite significant antagonism from the west. Now consider Hezbollah and Russia being unable to help in this rare moment. Now imagine Iran with nukes. They’d have the breathing room to rebuild their proxies, wait for Russia, and probably be extremely powerful in 20 years. The allure of shackling Iran isn’t just lessening their existing power. The golden opportunity here was the ability to prevent what was clearly going to be a major world power if given the time to pull it off. Thank you for the clarification / distinction  | ||
|
oBlade
United States5767 Posts
On June 23 2025 01:53 hitthat wrote: Afganistan was already war-torn fallen state - so attacking them changed nothing, and Iraq, althou I fucking despised taking part in this one, was at least in complete isolation. Both states were like 20 milion states when the US intervened, althou Afganistan is now over 40 milion country. Iran is connected with Pakis and shia militants and is already more than 90 milion nation, more than Iraq and Afganistan combined, and is attacked in time when drone warfare capabilities are realised but effective countermeasures are not fully developed yet. Oh, and they have strained relation with Saudis, so the war can escalate into regional war with Arabia and Yemen if Iran will try to push it farther just to damage US standing in mid east. So if I have this right, the US didn't ruin anything in Afghanistan because that was already the status quo, and Iraq was in "isolation." What do you mean they were "in isolation?" The only reason Iraq was isolated in 2003 is because the US beat Saddam to a pulp in the First Gulf War after he started wars with neighbors and bombed the Kurds in his own territory and invaded US allies and threatened world energy before, then left sanctions and no fly zones in place. The conditions I believe you're referring to didn't happen by accident, they were because of Desert Storm. So if Iran weren't connected with "Pakis" as you say and Shia militants, and they were just minding their own business, then they would be more attackable because they are in isolation? The criteria of attacking them is not it's not dangerous or not, it's whether they are dangerous. If Iran didn't try to get nuclear weapons and weren't an apocalyptic theocracy with foreign policy consistent with that and didn't fund terrorists that attack US allies and US possessions, like the Houthis that disrupt world shipping and energy, they wouldn't be getting housecalls from B-2s. You're talking about drones like it's an advantage for Iran. The US can bomb any site it wants without a single footsoldier. Iran can never get to the US. They can potentially retaliate by attacking a US base or US ally, but they are doing that anyway. This is why the US bombed them now. The US doesn't want Iran to do what it's doing now, but with or while possessing a nuclear weapon. It has nothing to do with the regime change nation building statecraft you and Trump both hated. Not a single person from that era is involved with this administration. Not a single Bush, not Colin Powell, not Rumsfeld, not Kissinger, not Condoleeza Rice, not a single Clinton. It isn't about that. Iran could just stop doing what it's doing and not get bombed. That's the extent of the complexity of this. The Iranian regime could lose control of its own country, and be replaced. It could be replaced by a normal government, which would be great. It could be replaced by a hardline government with worse foreign policy that would escalate war, and then it would get pummeled and probably replaced again. It could be replaced by an Iranian Civil War. I don't think Turkey and Pakistan want to deal with that. The Taliban might want to do some fighting? Iraq can't. Russia can't. They would normally do Central Asian adventure-imperialism but they're quagmired in Ukraine. The threat from a destabilized Iran is a good outcome compared to the threat from a stable Iran that is attacking allies of the US and has nuclear weapons. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
On June 23 2025 02:24 Severedevil wrote: Progressive economic policies appeal to centrists. The trouble isn't appealing to centrists, it's appealing to billionaires. If you don't appeal to billionaires, then the billionaires pump propaganda into the centrists via ownership of the media (and ads and such). The billionaire part is true, the progressive economics isn't. We've all seen that poll that says something like 70% of people support single payer healthcare. Why doesn't that translate into candidates running on that issue winning by similar margins? It's because we aren't voting on a referendum on healthcare, we vote for candidates, and candidates that support single payer are fighting an uphill battle to not be seen as "tax & spend". That problem gets exponentially worse if they're simultaneously campaigning on other issues perceived as being costly. In other words, "70% support single payer" is misleading until you know what fraction of that 70% think it's a higher priority than tax cuts or whatever else centrists care about. If we might look back to 2008 for a moment and see a key part of Obama's platform: "[Obama] is proposing tax cuts for most families that are significantly larger than those McCain is offering, along with major tax increases for families making more than $250,000 a year. “That’s essentially a major part of our economic plan,” Obama said. “But it’s also a political message.” Economically, he is trying to use the tax code to spread the bounty from the market-based American economy to a far wider group of families. Politically, he is trying to drive a wedge through the great Reagan tax gambit." https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
Harris didn't lose because she was too left or not left enough. She lost because of a number of factors, one of them being that she ran too late because ol' selfish bastard Biden refused to drop out sooner. | ||
KwarK
United States43248 Posts
On June 23 2025 01:59 Zambrah wrote: Joe Biden ran against one of the most despised human beings in American history after he grossly mismanaged a severe pandemic. Clinton and Harris were also mediocre centrists and managed to lose to one of the most despised human beings in American history. American voters dont swing between parties, and when Democrats win its because turnout was up. Driving turnout is how Democrats win, that theres any resistance to that is baffling. Biden, Clinton and Harris ran against the same guy with roughly the same platform. One crushed and two marginally lost. The two who lost have something in common and it’s not centrist politics. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
On June 23 2025 02:59 Magic Powers wrote: Lets keep in mind Trump won despite being a multiple times convicted felon. Americans voted for their cult leader and disregarded policies entirely. And they already know it just a few months later. Harris didn't lose because she was too left or not left enough. She lost because of a number of factors, one of them being that she ran too late because ol' selfish bastard Biden refused to drop out sooner. Biden shouldn't have dropped out. Yeah he looked bad in that one debate, but Obama was widely perceived to have lost his first debate against Romney as well. Even AOC was telling Biden to stay in the race. It was the megadonors that had their knives out, and as it turned out, having their money didn't win the election for Harris anyway. The only people I blame for the 2024 debacle (besides the aforementioned donors) is the corrupt media that had orders of magnitude more shit to shovel over Biden sounding rambly than Trump saying wildly insane shit every single day. | ||
|
hitthat
Poland2267 Posts
On June 23 2025 02:41 oBlade wrote: What do you mean they were "in isolation?" Exactly what I said. Every Arab coutry + Iran was already hostile to Iraquis. I don't even have to explain it to you, because you answered your own question yourself, so i am aware you know what situation looked like. On June 23 2025 02:41 oBlade wrote: So if Iran weren't connected with "Pakis" as you say and Shia militants, and they were just minding their own business, then they would be more attackable because they are in isolation? Attack in question would be even more controversial than already is and also it would created instabilities, but it's not my point. My point is that this attack has more potential to escalate than former conflicts has - in case of Iraq escalated pretty badly. On June 23 2025 02:41 oBlade wrote: The criteria of attacking them is not it's not dangerous or not, it's whether they are dangerous. If Iran didn't try to get nuclear weapons and weren't an apocalyptic theocracy with foreign policy consistent with that and didn't fund terrorists that attack US allies and US possessions, like the Houthis that disrupt world shipping and energy, they wouldn't be getting housecalls from B-2s. So now not only the proxys may hypotheticaly disrupt the oil prises but also danger of another full scale war like we had in 2014, but this time with potentialy even more powerful actors involved. Realy, I do hope that Iran will not try to involve the Saudis for the good of everyone, but the risk is still there. On June 23 2025 02:41 oBlade wrote: It has nothing to do with the regime change nation building statecraft you and Trump both hated. Not a single person from that era is involved with this administration. Not a single Bush, not Colin Powell, not Rumsfeld, not Kissinger, not Condoleeza Rice, not a single Clinton. It isn't about that. Iran could just stop doing what it's doing and not get bombed. That's the extent of the complexity of this. Than pray for them to realy chicken out, because if they don't, without the "regime change" you will have what you had previosly, but magnified and with no limiters wear on. On June 23 2025 02:41 oBlade wrote: The Iranian regime could lose control of its own country, and be replaced. It could be replaced by a normal government, which would be great. It could be replaced by a hardline government with worse foreign policy that would escalate war, and then it would get pummeled and probably replaced again. It could be replaced by an Iranian Civil War. I don't think Turkey and Pakistan want to deal with that. The Taliban might want to do some fighting? Iraq can't. Russia can't. They would normally do Central Asian adventure-imperialism but they're quagmired in Ukraine. The threat from a destabilized Iran is a good outcome compared to the threat from a stable Iran that is attacking allies of the US and has nuclear weapons. Well, so lets find out how you will sort out this mess in following years, because I predict you will have a lot to do after this orange headed spark of genius. Althou I predict that trumpist will try to disown any turmoil that can potentialy be borned from this, blaming everyone but themselves. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
Edit: one of my tankie friends wrote an essay about how this strike signified the end of American military influence, and ended it by saying Iran is providing the US with an off ramp in pursuit of peace. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23477 Posts
On June 23 2025 01:53 LightSpectra wrote: Joe Biden won more votes than any other presidential candidate in U.S. history by campaigning as a liberal throwing some bones to progressives. + Show Spoiler + How many elections have progressives won outside of deep blue congressional districts? You're not wrong about him being a centrist offering little to progressives, but that's not how the media/Democrats sold it. Seems people completely forgot the headlines like "'Moderate’ Joe Biden has become the most progressive nominee in history" www.washingtonpost.com And people like Obama saying stuff like: "It is one of the reasons that Joe already has what is the most progressive platform of any major-party nominee in history. Because even before the pandemic turned the world upside down, it was already clear that we needed real structural change. The vast inequalities created by the new economy are easier to see now, but they existed long before this pandemic hit. "So we need to do more than just tinker around the edges with tax credits or underfunded programs. We have to go further to give everybody a great education, a lasting career and a stable retirement. We have to protect the gains we made with the Affordable Care Act, but it’s also time to go further. We should make plans affordable for everyone, provide everyone with a public option, expand Medicare and finish the job so that health care isn’t just a right but a reality for everybody." www.washingtonpost.com Unsurprisingly, "tinker around the edges with tax credits and underfunded programs" is exactly what we got from Biden. EDIT: On June 23 2025 03:04 LightSpectra wrote: Biden shouldn't have dropped out. + Show Spoiler + Yeah he looked bad in that one debate, but Obama was widely perceived to have lost his first debate against Romney as well. Even AOC was telling Biden to stay in the race. It was the megadonors that had their knives out, and as it turned out, having their money didn't win the election for Harris anyway. The only people I blame for the 2024 debacle (besides the aforementioned donors) is the corrupt media that had orders of magnitude more shit to shovel over Biden sounding rambly than Trump saying wildly insane shit every single day. Oh wow... | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23477 Posts
On June 23 2025 03:50 Mohdoo wrote: The tankie messaging around all this has been very odd. On one hand, the US needs to nation build because they and Israel flipped the whole country upside down with their attack. And on the other hand, the strikes did not damage anything and the US is incredibly weak Edit: one of my tankie friends wrote an essay about how this strike signified the end of American military influence, and ended it by saying Iran is providing the US with an off ramp in pursuit of peace. Post it in my blog? Sounds like a silly essay, but I'm curious. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
On June 23 2025 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote: You're not wrong about him being a centrist offering little to progressives, but that's not how the media/Democrats sold it. Seems people completely forgot the headlines like "'Moderate’ Joe Biden has become the most progressive nominee in history" www.washingtonpost.com And people like Obama saying stuff like: www.washingtonpost.com Unsurprisingly, "tinker around the edges with tax credits and underfunded programs" is exactly what we got from Biden. EDIT: Oh wow... Not sure why you're responding to me when you've forsworn it due to my alleged bastardry, but you know there were plenty of headlines about Harris being even more progressive than Biden, right? You can't have it both ways where progressivism wins elections because it's apparent but loses elections because those candidates were actually centrists. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On June 23 2025 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Post it in my blog? Sounds like a silly essay, but I'm curious. It was more like a deeply resentful stream of consciousness in discord, but I love the idea of trying to format it into an essay. I’ll post it later tonight once kids are snoozing | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45056 Posts
On June 23 2025 03:04 LightSpectra wrote: Biden shouldn't have dropped out. Yeah he looked bad in that one debate, but Obama was widely perceived to have lost his first debate against Romney as well. Even AOC was telling Biden to stay in the race. It was the megadonors that had their knives out, and as it turned out, having their money didn't win the election for Harris anyway. The only people I blame for the 2024 debacle (besides the aforementioned donors) is the corrupt media that had orders of magnitude more shit to shovel over Biden sounding rambly than Trump saying wildly insane shit every single day. I disagree with this comparison. There is a difference between Obama losing his debate against Romney (while still being able to speak in complete sentences and get some points across) and Biden literally being catatonic during his 2024 debate against Trump. Democrats and potential-voters-of-a-Democratic-candidate have a much higher bar / purity test / gatekeeping mindset for their candidate than Republicans do. Trump could have been equally catatonic (or a racist, sexist, felonious sexual predator who had a complete meltdown during his debate against Harris) and Republicans still would have overwhelmingly voted for him (because that's exactly what happened). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45056 Posts
On June 23 2025 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote: You're not wrong about him being a centrist offering little to progressives, but that's not how the media/Democrats sold it. Seems people completely forgot the headlines like "'Moderate’ Joe Biden has become the most progressive nominee in history" www.washingtonpost.com Wasn't that true though (at least, in modern history)? I mean, compared to FDR back in the day, or Bernie Sanders nowadays, or European left-wing parties, of course Biden is nowhere near them, and many of us definitely believe that Biden is not progressive enough... but isn't it also correct to say that, on a relative scale, Biden is the most progressive nominee in modern history? Moreso than Obama, H. Clinton, B. Clinton, and other Democratic nominees over the past 50+ years? Or is your concern something more along the lines of "technically yes, but the implication from the headline is that this bare minimum is progressive enough for our country - that his policies ostensibly don't need to be any further to the left, because one tiny step to the left ought to be sufficient to sway left-wing voters"? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
On June 23 2025 05:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I disagree with this comparison. There is a difference between Obama losing his debate against Romney (while still being able to speak in complete sentences and get some points across) and Biden literally being catatonic during his 2024 debate against Trump. Democrats and potential-voters-of-a-Democratic-candidate have a much higher bar / purity test / gatekeeping mindset for their candidate than Republicans do. Trump could have been equally catatonic (or a racist, sexist, felonious sexual predator who had a complete meltdown during his debate against Harris) and Republicans still would have overwhelmingly voted for him (because that's exactly what happened). I saw the debate and "literally being catatonic" is wildly hyperbolic. He clearly worked a long day and was burnt out, but he seemed totally fine every day after that. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On June 23 2025 01:21 oBlade wrote: Why is Iran potentially the most dangerous war of them all? ![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/740286543641575467/1386459437459439627/iran.png?ex=6859c879&is=685876f9&hm=2a80776fe790319a9109041caa2168ab8ae0f9aa3f0fe87b3081bedadbd50dbc&) I hope I marked the important part of the picture enough I am happy to answer any more questions on the matter. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7384 Posts
On June 23 2025 02:07 LightSpectra wrote: In 2016, Clinton was polling >10 points ahead of Trump two weeks before the election, it evened out because Jim Comey handed a fake scandal to the media on a silver platter. All the polling data I've seen suggested Harris lost Biden voters because she was perceived as being too left-wing (e.g. NYT/Siena poll saying 47% thought she was "too liberal or progressive" and 9% thought she was "not liberal or progressive enough"). And moreover, if the reason Biden won was because Trump is "one of the most despised beings in American history," that doesn't really explain how millions of Biden 2020 voters didn't turn out for Harris, since between the 2020 and 2024 elections was the whole 91 felony indictments plus adjudication on sexual assault--he became a worse person, not a better one. I'm to the left of Harris but she should've spent more time and resources winning centrists, not less. What I take from this is that a lot of polling data doesnt actually translate to reality given how often its wrong. Harris wasnt even courting the left wing, I dont understand what you wanted her to do, she swung right (didnt sway any Republican voters), she didnt swing left (and pissed off left wing voters), she was already a centrist, should she have stayed inert to win in your mind? The reason Biden beat Trump and Harris didnt is because Trump went into that election on a colossal negative event, the COVID pandemic, and Harris went into this election on a colossal negative sentiment around inflation and high cost of living. This is why progressive policy has to actually be implemented successfully, the Democrat strategy of come to the table pre-negotiated and then negotiate even further down is dumb, theyre viewed as quitters, ineffective, inept, or disingenuous because of it, theyre not viewed as pragmatic or effective. Democrats have created a huge hole to dig themselves out of because your ideas and values dont actually matter if voters dont actually have any faith you hold those values or intend to implement those ideas. Run on popular policy, enact popular policy, make lives of every day people better, get them invested in you the same way that older black americans are invested in the Democrats. This doesnt have to be hard, unfortunately Democrats dont want to run do any of these things and the only reason anyone can really pin that to is either because their donors dont like it or because theyre too fucking stupid to understand that their '90s ass strategy doesnt work so well 30 years later. On June 23 2025 03:02 KwarK wrote: Biden, Clinton and Harris ran against the same guy with roughly the same platform. One crushed and two marginally lost. The two who lost have something in common and it’s not centrist politics. The only thing that keeps me from agreeing with you that America hates non-white-men is that the previous Democrat president was Barrack Hussein Obama, muslim-name-black-man is such a confluence of things to erect an American's hate boner that I can't see the populous as being incapable of electing someone who isnt a straigth white dude. What I take from Obama's presidential win is that people respond to charismatic speakers with a hopeful vision of the future. Trump was also like this, although he was obviously a grosser, slimier, dumber version of it. That being said, it seems like we have a constant stream of the kind of once-in-a-life-time crises that tend to make encumbency difficult, so Im not sure how anything truly holds up when it feels like every administration is going to have some sort of horrible crisis to deal with and everyone's lives continue to just sort of feel worse. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43248 Posts
| ||
| ||
