|
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 |
Things are looking pretty good for Mamdani in the primary for Mayor of NYC.
Early voting started in New York on 14 June, and the city said more than 380,000 people had voted by Sunday – more than double the number that voted early in the 2021 primary. New Yorkers under 40 accounted for 40% of all early voters, the New York Post reported, which would suggest good news for Mamdani, who has proved to be much more popular than Cuomo among young people.
A survey released last week found that 60% of 18-34-year-olds ranked Mamdani first, compared to just 10% for Cuomo.
Mamdani has run on a progressive platform, promising to freeze rent and make buses free citywide, [city owned grocery stores is a big one omitted here] and his campaign has been propelled by a social media following that dwarfs his rivals’. He was endorsed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at an event attended by thousands of people in June, and has also won the backing of Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator.
Cuomo has been much less visible, eschewing large rallies for tightly managed appearances at union offices and other small venues. As the race has narrowed, his campaign and the organizations backing him – some of which are funded by billionaire Republican donors – have focused almost exclusively on attacking Mamdani, spending millions of dollars on mailers and TV adverts.
www.theguardian.com
Regardless of the outcome, the race really helps to frame "centrist" Democrats as the opposition to progress that they are, completely independent of Republicans.
|
On June 25 2025 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +But my point is they are not rational actors, this isn’t 5d chess. They are poor decision makers and they have deeply clouded and ineffective judgment. Are they? They're both still in power, they must be doing something right. Maybe Iran could be in a better position if Khameini made some different decisions, but Netanyahu's one of the all time greats in terms of self-serving corruption.
Capitalism is really effective, at enriching a few shitbag fatcats. Similarly, Khameini and Netanyahu are effective in their selfish goals, but they are ineffective at leaders who are supposed to be helping each of their nation's people.
|
On June 25 2025 01:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:But my point is they are not rational actors, this isn’t 5d chess. They are poor decision makers and they have deeply clouded and ineffective judgment. Are they? They're both still in power, they must be doing something right. Maybe Iran could be in a better position if Khameini made some different decisions, but Netanyahu's one of the all time greats in terms of self-serving corruption. Capitalism is really effective, at enriching a few shitbag fatcats. Similarly, Khameini and Netanyahu are effective in their selfish goals, but they are ineffective at leaders who are supposed to be helping each of their nation's people.
That's why I'm not agreeing with the claim that they're "religious nutjobs" with "deeply clouded and ineffective judgment". The long-term interest of their countries and the people therein only sometimes overlap with their desire to stay in power. Judge their foreign policy by the latter and they seem like very rational actors.
|
You are being inconsistent here Mohdoo, from what I read from you, you seem to be fully on board with most of what Nethyanahu's been doing since October 7th and think that he's been very effective.
I tend to agree, even tho I completely disagree how good and effective this is for safety of Israel and the region long term.
I would also argue that for a "religious nutjob" Khameini has been incredibly restrained in his responses for unprecedented escalations coming from Trump and Nethyanahu.
From 2020 Soleimani assassination til today he's been choosing the off ramp pretty consistently and not giving Trump and Nethyanahu an excuse to go to full scale war against Iran. Ditto to his response to Trump torching the Iran deal and not pulling the trigger on getting to the bomb.
|
Northern Ireland26354 Posts
On June 25 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 01:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 25 2025 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:But my point is they are not rational actors, this isn’t 5d chess. They are poor decision makers and they have deeply clouded and ineffective judgment. Are they? They're both still in power, they must be doing something right. Maybe Iran could be in a better position if Khameini made some different decisions, but Netanyahu's one of the all time greats in terms of self-serving corruption. Capitalism is really effective, at enriching a few shitbag fatcats. Similarly, Khameini and Netanyahu are effective in their selfish goals, but they are ineffective at leaders who are supposed to be helping each of their nation's people. That's why I'm not agreeing with the claim that they're "religious nutjobs" with "deeply clouded and ineffective judgment". The long-term interest of their countries and the people therein only sometimes overlap with their desire to stay in power. Judge their foreign policy by the latter and they seem like very rational actors.
Happy cake day!
Rationality isn’t behaving like a logical robot. It’s just not how humans operate, indeed it’s somewhat irrational to try to apply that as a lens
|
The phrase "rational actor" has a particular meaning in economics, diplomacy, ethics, etc., and in fact there are some subtle differences depending on which discipline is using the phrase. But in common parlance it often just means "not psychotic or delusional".
If Netanyahu or Khameini actually believed in some esoteric Jewish/Islamic prophesy that would be fulfilled during their rule, or something along those lines, then yes, in the common parlance sense it would be fair to say that they're not "rational". But I have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case. Netanyahu in particular doesn't even pretend to be a devout Orthodox Jew, he quotes the Bible when politically convenient but generally seems to be somewhat of a deist that holds onto a few Orthodox traditions in the same way atheists put up Christmas trees.
|
On June 25 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 01:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 25 2025 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:But my point is they are not rational actors, this isn’t 5d chess. They are poor decision makers and they have deeply clouded and ineffective judgment. Are they? They're both still in power, they must be doing something right. Maybe Iran could be in a better position if Khameini made some different decisions, but Netanyahu's one of the all time greats in terms of self-serving corruption. Capitalism is really effective, at enriching a few shitbag fatcats. Similarly, Khameini and Netanyahu are effective in their selfish goals, but they are ineffective at leaders who are supposed to be helping each of their nation's people. That's why I'm not agreeing with the claim that they're "religious nutjobs" with "deeply clouded and ineffective judgment". The long-term interest of their countries and the people therein only sometimes overlap with their desire to stay in power. Judge their foreign policy by the latter and they seem like very rational actors.
Part of it is retaining power, but some of it is clearly genuinely believing various dumb shit. They believe their team is more godly than their enemy. But this is splitting hairs, we both get what each other mean. Both countries better off with their leaders right now.
On June 25 2025 01:25 Jankisa wrote:
You are being inconsistent here Mohdoo, from what I read from you, you seem to be fully on board with most of what Nethyanahu's been doing since October 7th and think that he's been very effective.
I tend to agree, even tho I completely disagree how good and effective this is for safety of Israel and the region long term.
I would also argue that for a "religious nutjob" Khameini has been incredibly restrained in his responses for unprecedented escalations coming from Trump and Nethyanahu.
From 2020 Soleimani assassination til today he's been choosing the off ramp pretty consistently and not giving Trump and Nethyanahu an excuse to go to full scale war against Iran. Ditto to his response to Trump torching the Iran deal and not pulling the trigger on getting to the bomb.
Netanyahu is a shitbag, but he is a willing participant in war with Iran. Iran is also a willing participant. Both are morally failing and a shame to humanity by engaging in war. But my point throughout this has been that neither are victims because both are totally on board with the conflict. "Who started it" is what I push back against because we are way past that. Neither are willing to let go of the conflict. So they ought to be left to resolve it. When the world steps in and tries to convince them each to be reasonable, the world is forgetting these aren't reasonable people.
Also, Khameini "restraining" himself and the IRGC, but still trying to inch out what he can without consequence, is still war. It is incredibly immature, entitled, and whiny to pretend Khameini and the IRGC are entitled to asymmetric warfare as an actual full-ass country. He can go kick rocks with his victim complex bullshit. He can either win the war, surrender the war, or stop with the bad faith whining.
|
United States43673 Posts
On June 24 2025 22:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Its a huge breath of fresh air seeing this kinda actually candid answer. Not the "he says it like it is, because he said racist things and I like that". But actually saying it like it is. Iran and Israel are a couple of degenerate idiots and they are so lost in this conflict they have lost themselves entirely.
It literally started within living memory though. His living memory. This whole “nobody even remembers why they’re fighting” thing is nonsense. Not only do loads of people remember when and why it started, Trump is old as fuck, he should remember it.
|
On June 25 2025 02:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2025 22:49 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1937468807536169315Its a huge breath of fresh air seeing this kinda actually candid answer. Not the "he says it like it is, because he said racist things and I like that". But actually saying it like it is. Iran and Israel are a couple of degenerate idiots and they are so lost in this conflict they have lost themselves entirely. It literally started within living memory though. His living memory. This whole “nobody even remembers why they’re fighting” thing is nonsense. Trump is old as fuck, he should remember this.
England and France had plenty of disagreements between the beginning of time and modern day. They are ok now. There isn't any real reason for England and France to have closer diplomatic ties than Israel and Iran. Maybe Trump is just having one of his usual cognitive episodes. But either way its still true. Iran and Israel continuing to have military conflict is extremely distasteful and unbecoming. They are 2 drunk frat girls screaming and pulling each other's hair in a bathroom while people in the next room are trying to have a conversation.
|
Canada11439 Posts
I'm laughing because the plan concocted by the man of peace who exalts himself is going like clockwork. Declaring a pre-emptive ceasefire only to have it violated? Exactly according to plan and really shows how respected he is. Nobody respects him more. Feigning outrage and bewilderment and yelling in all caps to STAHP on twitter? According to plan. Remember, you have to take the peace-maker-in-chief's words seriously, but not literally. He has them exactly where he wants them. This is 1000 IQ, big brain 6D Chess. I trust the plan and am here for it.
Art of the Deal. No new wars. Ukraine belongs to Russia. America is back, baby!
|
Here is a fun one. A rare look at how badly Trump is getting played by the rest of the world just casually stroking his ego.
A message from Rutte to Trump that Trump proudly posted on truthsocial, not getting that he is being talked to like a 5y old child.
freeimage.host
|
MAGAt will see that and think "wow, Trump's so strong he's making everyone grovel to him!"
|
|
|
"Number one, I'm not advocating us invading Iran to take down the regime. I don't see American boots on the ground." - Lindsey Graham, Tuesday
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374823720112 - play from 3:30
Senator Graham has not backstabbed Trump on this yet. He was twisting the question to use the phrase "regime change" as a form of wordplay, saying he wants the regime in Iran to change its behavior of mainly not wanting to kill all the Jews and being okay with Israel existing, which he repeated several times on that show or on Hannity where he also appeared Tuesday (give or take a day, my clock is off).
I definitely am fine with bombing them again in a few years if they continue down this road and get back to where they were last week. A minor thorn in the world's side, but it's manageable.
Bolton has actually been the one all over TV asking for regime change, but that's Bolton, and that's why his job is being on TV now.
|
The funniest satire I've seen so far on this war is "Lindsey Graham hospitalised for prolonged erection after Iran is bombed by the US".
|
On June 25 2025 04:56 oBlade wrote:"Number one, I'm not advocating us invading Iran to take down the regime. I don't see American boots on the ground." - Lindsey Graham, Tuesday https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374823720112 - play from 3:30 Senator Graham has not backstabbed Trump on this yet. He was twisting the question to use the phrase "regime change" as a form of wordplay, saying he wants the regime in Iran to change its behavior of mainly not wanting to kill all the Jews and being okay with Israel existing, which he repeated several times on that show or on Hannity where he also appeared Tuesday (give or take a day, my clock is off). I definitely am fine with bombing them again in a few years if they continue down this road and get back to where they were last week. A minor thorn in the world's side, but it's manageable. Bolton has actually been the one all over TV asking for regime change, but that's Bolton, and that's why his job is being on TV now. The problem is that Iran has been shown that the only option they have is a nuke.
They are going to keep trying because nothing else will safeguard them from the next time an Israeli PM with falling ratings needs a war to divert attention.
|
On June 25 2025 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 04:56 oBlade wrote:"Number one, I'm not advocating us invading Iran to take down the regime. I don't see American boots on the ground." - Lindsey Graham, Tuesday https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374823720112 - play from 3:30 Senator Graham has not backstabbed Trump on this yet. He was twisting the question to use the phrase "regime change" as a form of wordplay, saying he wants the regime in Iran to change its behavior of mainly not wanting to kill all the Jews and being okay with Israel existing, which he repeated several times on that show or on Hannity where he also appeared Tuesday (give or take a day, my clock is off). I definitely am fine with bombing them again in a few years if they continue down this road and get back to where they were last week. A minor thorn in the world's side, but it's manageable. Bolton has actually been the one all over TV asking for regime change, but that's Bolton, and that's why his job is being on TV now. The problem is that Iran has been shown that the only option they have is a nuke. They are going to keep trying because nothing else will safeguard them from the next time an Israeli PM with falling ratings needs a war to divert attention.
He also interpreted what graham said so that it doesn't sound as bad as "regime change" in the traditional sense. I don't know how one would be able to pretzel themselves into that conclusion but here we are.
|
United States43673 Posts
On June 25 2025 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 04:56 oBlade wrote:"Number one, I'm not advocating us invading Iran to take down the regime. I don't see American boots on the ground." - Lindsey Graham, Tuesday https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374823720112 - play from 3:30 Senator Graham has not backstabbed Trump on this yet. He was twisting the question to use the phrase "regime change" as a form of wordplay, saying he wants the regime in Iran to change its behavior of mainly not wanting to kill all the Jews and being okay with Israel existing, which he repeated several times on that show or on Hannity where he also appeared Tuesday (give or take a day, my clock is off). I definitely am fine with bombing them again in a few years if they continue down this road and get back to where they were last week. A minor thorn in the world's side, but it's manageable. Bolton has actually been the one all over TV asking for regime change, but that's Bolton, and that's why his job is being on TV now. The problem is that Iran has been shown that the only option they have is a nuke. They are going to keep trying because nothing else will safeguard them from the next time an Israeli PM with falling ratings needs a war to divert attention.
Yep. Bush said he’d invade them and so they needed a nuke to stop him because he said the same about NK but NK is safe. Then Obama said that as long as they followed some rules they’d be safe. Then a bunch of Republican senators literally broke the law to undermine Obama and promise Iran that as long as they were in power Iran would never be safe and so they should probably get nukes. Then Trump broke the agreement keeping Iran safe and told them only a nuke could keep them safe. Then Trump attacked them for not having a nuke. The only reasonable conclusion for Iran at this point is that America will keep attacking unless they get nukes. That’s a problem because Israel will keep attacking for as long as they don’t have nukes (unless they make peace).
|
On June 25 2025 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 04:56 oBlade wrote:"Number one, I'm not advocating us invading Iran to take down the regime. I don't see American boots on the ground." - Lindsey Graham, Tuesday https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374823720112 - play from 3:30 Senator Graham has not backstabbed Trump on this yet. He was twisting the question to use the phrase "regime change" as a form of wordplay, saying he wants the regime in Iran to change its behavior of mainly not wanting to kill all the Jews and being okay with Israel existing, which he repeated several times on that show or on Hannity where he also appeared Tuesday (give or take a day, my clock is off). I definitely am fine with bombing them again in a few years if they continue down this road and get back to where they were last week. A minor thorn in the world's side, but it's manageable. Bolton has actually been the one all over TV asking for regime change, but that's Bolton, and that's why his job is being on TV now. The problem is that Iran has been shown that the only option they have is a nuke. They are going to keep trying because nothing else will safeguard them from the next time an Israeli PM with falling ratings needs a war to divert attention.
Their only option to do what? Blow up Israel? Because supporting proxy groups that attack Israel hasn't worked, nor has actually getting into conventional spats? How about this option: Don't make a pillar of your government the destruction of a neighboring nuclear power and don't poke them.
On June 25 2025 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2025 04:56 oBlade wrote:"Number one, I'm not advocating us invading Iran to take down the regime. I don't see American boots on the ground." - Lindsey Graham, Tuesday https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374823720112 - play from 3:30 Senator Graham has not backstabbed Trump on this yet. He was twisting the question to use the phrase "regime change" as a form of wordplay, saying he wants the regime in Iran to change its behavior of mainly not wanting to kill all the Jews and being okay with Israel existing, which he repeated several times on that show or on Hannity where he also appeared Tuesday (give or take a day, my clock is off). I definitely am fine with bombing them again in a few years if they continue down this road and get back to where they were last week. A minor thorn in the world's side, but it's manageable. Bolton has actually been the one all over TV asking for regime change, but that's Bolton, and that's why his job is being on TV now. The problem is that Iran has been shown that the only option they have is a nuke. They are going to keep trying because nothing else will safeguard them from the next time an Israeli PM with falling ratings needs a war to divert attention. He also interpreted what graham said so that it doesn't sound as bad as "regime change" in the traditional sense. I don't know how one would be able to pretzel themselves into that conclusion but here we are.
Yes I "interpreted" the actual video of Graham explicitly saying he doesn't want to invade Iran to change the regime.
You believed the real news, which is Newsweek definitely not quote mining him to stir up muddying the waters with the magic word "regime change," which conjures up memories of 2003 and easily convinces the rage-baited to believe the GOP is a huge invade Iran regime change monolith. Congress is not even going to vote whether to declare war on Iran let alone convince Trump to invade.
|
On June 25 2025 05:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2025 04:56 oBlade wrote:"Number one, I'm not advocating us invading Iran to take down the regime. I don't see American boots on the ground." - Lindsey Graham, Tuesday https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374823720112 - play from 3:30 Senator Graham has not backstabbed Trump on this yet. He was twisting the question to use the phrase "regime change" as a form of wordplay, saying he wants the regime in Iran to change its behavior of mainly not wanting to kill all the Jews and being okay with Israel existing, which he repeated several times on that show or on Hannity where he also appeared Tuesday (give or take a day, my clock is off). I definitely am fine with bombing them again in a few years if they continue down this road and get back to where they were last week. A minor thorn in the world's side, but it's manageable. Bolton has actually been the one all over TV asking for regime change, but that's Bolton, and that's why his job is being on TV now. The problem is that Iran has been shown that the only option they have is a nuke. They are going to keep trying because nothing else will safeguard them from the next time an Israeli PM with falling ratings needs a war to divert attention. Their only option to do what? Blow up Israel? Because supporting proxy groups that attack Israel hasn't worked, nor has actually getting into conventional spats? How about this option: Don't make a pillar of your government the destruction of a neighboring nuclear power and don't poke them. Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 05:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 25 2025 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2025 04:56 oBlade wrote:"Number one, I'm not advocating us invading Iran to take down the regime. I don't see American boots on the ground." - Lindsey Graham, Tuesday https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374823720112 - play from 3:30 Senator Graham has not backstabbed Trump on this yet. He was twisting the question to use the phrase "regime change" as a form of wordplay, saying he wants the regime in Iran to change its behavior of mainly not wanting to kill all the Jews and being okay with Israel existing, which he repeated several times on that show or on Hannity where he also appeared Tuesday (give or take a day, my clock is off). I definitely am fine with bombing them again in a few years if they continue down this road and get back to where they were last week. A minor thorn in the world's side, but it's manageable. Bolton has actually been the one all over TV asking for regime change, but that's Bolton, and that's why his job is being on TV now. The problem is that Iran has been shown that the only option they have is a nuke. They are going to keep trying because nothing else will safeguard them from the next time an Israeli PM with falling ratings needs a war to divert attention. He also interpreted what graham said so that it doesn't sound as bad as "regime change" in the traditional sense. I don't know how one would be able to pretzel themselves into that conclusion but here we are. Yes I "interpreted" the actual video of Graham explicitly saying he doesn't want to invade Iran to change the regime. You believed the real news, which is Newsweek definitely not quote mining him to stir up muddying the waters with the magic word "regime change," which conjures up memories of 2003 and easily convinces the rage-baited to believe the GOP is a huge invade Iran regime change monolith. Congress is not even going to vote whether to declare war on Iran let alone convince Trump to invade.
I watched the video and he said what he said. He doesn't want US boots but that doesn't exclude bombing them to hell and back through proxies or allowing Israel to continue their reign of terror. So please...pretzel more. A regime that has been trying to eradicate Israel for how many years is suddenly going to change their minds because...? Yeah, there's only one way that happens and it's invading. Or paying rebels in Iran to takeover. But keep believing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
