|
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 July 03 2025 23:44 WombaT wrote:
Trump doesn’t have a 100% hit rate between what he said he’d do, and what he’s done.
But it’s pretty good. I’d be pretty happy with the conversion rate of campaign promise to action, if I supported those policies. Of course I don’t.
If you just think about it as Republicans job to pass this kind of terrible legislation and Democrats job to stop/undo it, it is pretty clear Republicans are just more effective at their job.
Trump is basically undoing decades of Democrat "progress" that would take Democrats decades more just to return to the previous status quo.
Democrats can only lose. At their best they pass Republican legislation and brag about it being their biggest accomplishment in 40+ years.
If you instead consider Democrats might be controlled opposition, they couldn't really be doing a much better job.
|
Wow, I love your method.
If I think about stuff in a way that has nothing to do with reality, I can make any conclusion or consider anything as whatever I want.
It's almost like it's a stupid way to "analyze" things.
Have you tried to... Not consider Democrats controlled opposition? An opposition that mind you, is still more effective than your opposition.
|
On July 03 2025 23:59 Velr wrote:
Wow, I love your method.
If I think about stuff in a way that has nothing to do with reality, I can make any conclusion or consider anything as whatever I want.
It's almost like it's a stupid way to "analyze" things.
Democrats literally could have stopped this Trump legislation by simply offering endless amendments. They couldn't be bothered to stop it.
Instead we have Jeffries doing his Temu Booker impression in another performative attempt at pretending to fight.
That seems a lot more connected to reality than whatever delusions people maintain to believe that Democrats aren't effectively controlled opposition.
EDIT: Have you tried to... Not consider Democrats controlled opposition? An opposition that mind you, is still more effective than your opposition.
Yes, I don't know anyone here that's done more work for/in the party than myself (granted mine was like a decade ago now).
+ Show Spoiler +EDIT2: Serm would be my guess, if someone has.
|
OK, so, apparently there are flavors to controlled opposition definition, which one would you say the Democrats are?
For GH but for others as well:
Poll: Controlled opposition?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Systematic Opposition (permitted and controlled by the ruling party)
☐ Loyal Opposition (fight for their candidates but no real resistance to the controling party agenda)
☐ Placeholder Opposition (unctions as a placeholder for opposition without any real power or ability)
☐ Co-opted or Weakened Opposition (deliberately weakened or co-opted by the ruling powers)
☐ One party state minor party (under the control of the dominant party)
☐ Not contolled opposition
I'd say either they aren't or they are on their way to be come Co-opted or Weakened Opposition, basically they are on their way of being in a China or Russia type "democracy".
|
On July 03 2025 22:09 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2025 21:16 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 03 2025 19:00 Doublemint wrote:On July 03 2025 18:35 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 03 2025 18:14 Doublemint wrote:On July 03 2025 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
He's doing what he said he would do. Lower taxes on the rich and deport millions of immigrants. He was very vocal about it, this is what the majority of Americans (that actually voted) wanted. while he most definitely said it, hindsight is always 20/20, politicians tell a lot of things on the campaign trail. Trump is the ultimate bullshitter and simply unbeaten in this discipline. US #1 in this regard. however there's also a good chance it is also a sign of me being de sensitized by the usual PR speak that is just way too common nowadays. Trump also said he would win the trade/tariff war - easily. and yet here we are. things are reaching a dangerous tipping point on this front though. the "Alligator Alcatraz" press conference yesterday was bonkers. if a Democrat said a fraction of the unhinged and demented shit... Fox News hosts would personally storm the Capitol Building. from threatening arrest for Mamdani to getting "dangerous Americans out of the country". such words from the highest office very quickly stop being a joke. namely when the jokester uttering them takes them seriously and funds a loyal army led by sycophantic ICE barbie Noem and rabid anti-migrant baldie Steven Miller. taking the culture war to the streets - war against other cultures. and potentially making it a real one. Winning/losing, fixing/destroying doesn't really come into it, that part of it is always bluster. I mean, even in your example, he did exactly what he said he was going to do, i. e. Start a trade/tariff war. He said he was going to demolish the regulatory framework and kill the EV market, and he is doing that as well. I mean, what examples can you find of stuff he said he was going to do that he isn't actually doing? I don't mean vague stuff like "draining the swamp" -- I mean when he says he is going to do a specific thing, like deport millions of immigrants. Mexico pays for a wall - a wall he was going to build? as in thousands of miles of wall, not just a couple hundred miles and most of it was maintenance on the existing one. or very recently he said Medicaid will not be touched. 800+ billion in cuts say otherwise. I get your point, though trying is not doing, right? //edit: us arguing about the semantics is a very clear indicator of how - very unclear - the "success" was. But that's the point. He didn't say a thing to get elected and then did something different when he got into power. The people that voted for him know that when he says he's going to do a thing, he will then try to do/start to do or just plain do the thing he said he was going to do. Sure, most of the time it's in the cruelest, most hamfisted way of going about it, but he is, for the most part, doing what he said he would do. all the time? fixing health care - fixing the US debt - fixing the trade deficit. just 3 major ones off the top of my head.
He isn't being successful at it, but he is trying to fix the trade deficit (by starting a tariff war), fixing the US debt (by collecting said tariffs). Like, he has taken concrete actions that he said he would do to further these goals.
fixing healthcare is just too vague. He is using a different definition of 'fixing' than you or I would have, but isn't inconsistent with the republican definition of 'fixing healthcare'
Like wombat says, if I supported his policies, I'd be happy with the conversion rate of promise to action. I just think all of these policies are terrible.
|
He promised the largest deportation program in history and by all accounts his pace of deportations is worse than Biden’s last year in office
|
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
On July 04 2025 01:47 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2025 22:09 Doublemint wrote:On July 03 2025 21:16 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 03 2025 19:00 Doublemint wrote:On July 03 2025 18:35 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 03 2025 18:14 Doublemint wrote:On July 03 2025 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
He's doing what he said he would do. Lower taxes on the rich and deport millions of immigrants. He was very vocal about it, this is what the majority of Americans (that actually voted) wanted. while he most definitely said it, hindsight is always 20/20, politicians tell a lot of things on the campaign trail. Trump is the ultimate bullshitter and simply unbeaten in this discipline. US #1 in this regard. however there's also a good chance it is also a sign of me being de sensitized by the usual PR speak that is just way too common nowadays. Trump also said he would win the trade/tariff war - easily. and yet here we are. things are reaching a dangerous tipping point on this front though. the "Alligator Alcatraz" press conference yesterday was bonkers. if a Democrat said a fraction of the unhinged and demented shit... Fox News hosts would personally storm the Capitol Building. from threatening arrest for Mamdani to getting "dangerous Americans out of the country". such words from the highest office very quickly stop being a joke. namely when the jokester uttering them takes them seriously and funds a loyal army led by sycophantic ICE barbie Noem and rabid anti-migrant baldie Steven Miller. taking the culture war to the streets - war against other cultures. and potentially making it a real one. Winning/losing, fixing/destroying doesn't really come into it, that part of it is always bluster. I mean, even in your example, he did exactly what he said he was going to do, i. e. Start a trade/tariff war. He said he was going to demolish the regulatory framework and kill the EV market, and he is doing that as well. I mean, what examples can you find of stuff he said he was going to do that he isn't actually doing? I don't mean vague stuff like "draining the swamp" -- I mean when he says he is going to do a specific thing, like deport millions of immigrants. Mexico pays for a wall - a wall he was going to build? as in thousands of miles of wall, not just a couple hundred miles and most of it was maintenance on the existing one. or very recently he said Medicaid will not be touched. 800+ billion in cuts say otherwise. I get your point, though trying is not doing, right? //edit: us arguing about the semantics is a very clear indicator of how - very unclear - the "success" was. But that's the point. He didn't say a thing to get elected and then did something different when he got into power. The people that voted for him know that when he says he's going to do a thing, he will then try to do/start to do or just plain do the thing he said he was going to do. Sure, most of the time it's in the cruelest, most hamfisted way of going about it, but he is, for the most part, doing what he said he would do. all the time? fixing health care - fixing the US debt - fixing the trade deficit. just 3 major ones off the top of my head. He isn't being successful at it, but he is trying to fix the trade deficit (by starting a tariff war), fixing the US debt (by collecting said tariffs). Like, he has taken concrete actions that he said he would do to further these goals. fixing healthcare is just too vague. He is using a different definition of 'fixing' than you or I would have, but isn't inconsistent with the republican definition of 'fixing healthcare' Like wombat says, if I supported his policies, I'd be happy with the conversion rate of promise to action. I just think all of these policies are terrible.
If Keir Starmer’s Labour (to take one example) had a similar campaign pledge/rhetoric : delivery in government ratio, their popularity wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff in their first year.
|
To be clear I consider State parties to be separate from national parties, and that the DFL is strickly a different entity than the Democratic party. If people want real change from their national party they need to change their state party.
I don't know how much I would claim of work with a state like California vs how much of the national party effort I contributed in but I know I'm proud of what the DFL has done and who they've sent to Washington.
Its very easy to get jaded with the reality of the world you live in when you grow old enough to learn the reasons for the suffering. Using the defensive strategy of denying that reality and trying to substitute different reasons to absolve yourself of your responsibilities is not the healthy thing to do about anything.
Its like how the state politicians aren't getting wholly in line with a dem soc in New York. You can't constantly oppose party unity and then act surprised when you don't get it in return. People have agency and have a responsibility to use their agency, but are not responsible for things outside of their agency.
|
Well, the vote just passed the house. Only two republicans voted against the gestapo police.
There's no other way of saying this: You guys are fucked
|
I think the simple answer is the one most likely to be true here: Democrat leadership are genuinely scared of defying Trump. Whether financially, legally, or physically, none of us would be surprised if Schumer ended up in prison for "tax fraud" or something.
The current democrat leadership were not voted in during this political climate. They are just kinda a terrible fit for it. It doesn't mean its a huge conspiracy. It will take time until more unapologetic fighters like Zohran are elected.
|
On July 04 2025 02:43 BlackJack wrote:
He promised the largest deportation program in history and by all accounts his pace of deportations is worse than Biden’s last year in office
Interesting lie.
https://www.visaverge.com/news/ice-deportations-in-2025-fall-far-short-of-rumored-271000-figure/
If the observed 100-day pace between January and April were to continue/cover for all of 2025, then over the whole year we'd expect to see 492 700 deportations.
The peak annual numbers during previous presidential terms were as follows:
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/72f6ad0e37ad116397941e500636f064.png)
That means Trump is likely on pace to adding +82% deportations to Biden's 2024 peak.
|
On July 04 2025 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
I think the simple answer is the one most likely to be true here: Democrat leadership are genuinely scared of defying Trump. Whether financially, legally, or physically, none of us would be surprised if Schumer ended up in prison for "tax fraud" or something.
The current democrat leadership were not voted in during this political climate. They are just kinda a terrible fit for it. It doesn't mean its a huge conspiracy. It will take time until more unapologetic fighters like Zohran are elected.
The minority in Congress can't really do much to resist the majority. It doesn't matter who replaces Schumer or Jeffries so long as the rules of order aren't changed.
Granted, people like AOC and Crockett are doing a way better job at a symbolic resistance. But all the symbolism and rhetoric in the world isn't going to stop Republicans from passing sadistic bullshit when they control the government.
|
On July 04 2025 04:37 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
I think the simple answer is the one most likely to be true here: Democrat leadership are genuinely scared of defying Trump. Whether financially, legally, or physically, none of us would be surprised if Schumer ended up in prison for "tax fraud" or something.
The current democrat leadership were not voted in during this political climate. They are just kinda a terrible fit for it. It doesn't mean its a huge conspiracy. It will take time until more unapologetic fighters like Zohran are elected. The minority in Congress can't really do much to resist the majority. It doesn't matter who replaces Schumer or Jeffries so long as the rules of order aren't changed. Granted, people like AOC and Crockett are doing a way better job at a symbolic resistance. But all the symbolism and rhetoric in the world isn't going to stop Republicans from passing sadistic bullshit when they control the government.
Symbolic action could be argued as more important than logistical action in politics. Schumer and Jeffries are occupying extremely important roles that could be making a huge stink if they were the right people for this moment. They are massively failing and its a big deal. Symbolism is what always makes the difference. Major civil rights movements have all been sparked by emotionally captivating events or from bold people making very symbolic gestures.
Don't disarm yourself by thinking the only way to impact change is playing by the rules. The ruling class relies on individuals thinking they don't have power. The masses are in fact the only ones who wield real power. The ruling class relies on social status, fear, and intimidation to have any drop of power. All we need to do is ignore it and we're already 1 step closer.
|
Symbolic actions like Cory Booker giving a record-breaking floor speech about the Trump administration's corruption that people shrugged at because it didn't actually accomplish anything?
The best weapon in the Republicans' arsenal, after their control over cable news and social media, is that Democrats keep doing this circular firing squad bullshit.
|
On July 04 2025 04:37 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
I think the simple answer is the one most likely to be true here: Democrat leadership are genuinely scared of defying Trump. Whether financially, legally, or physically, none of us would be surprised if Schumer ended up in prison for "tax fraud" or something.
The current democrat leadership were not voted in during this political climate. They are just kinda a terrible fit for it. It doesn't mean its a huge conspiracy. It will take time until more unapologetic fighters like Zohran are elected. The minority in Congress can't really do much to resist the majority. It doesn't matter who replaces Schumer or Jeffries so long as the rules of order aren't changed. Granted, people like AOC and Crockett are doing a way better job at a symbolic resistance. But all the symbolism and rhetoric in the world isn't going to stop Republicans from passing sadistic bullshit when they control the government.
That is so weird. During the times where democrats were the majority, republicans seemed to be able to block basically anything all the time. Why can the democrats not do the same shit to the republicans now? Or did they just let the republicans block them back then?
|
On July 04 2025 05:53 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 04:37 LightSpectra wrote:On July 04 2025 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
I think the simple answer is the one most likely to be true here: Democrat leadership are genuinely scared of defying Trump. Whether financially, legally, or physically, none of us would be surprised if Schumer ended up in prison for "tax fraud" or something.
The current democrat leadership were not voted in during this political climate. They are just kinda a terrible fit for it. It doesn't mean its a huge conspiracy. It will take time until more unapologetic fighters like Zohran are elected. The minority in Congress can't really do much to resist the majority. It doesn't matter who replaces Schumer or Jeffries so long as the rules of order aren't changed. Granted, people like AOC and Crockett are doing a way better job at a symbolic resistance. But all the symbolism and rhetoric in the world isn't going to stop Republicans from passing sadistic bullshit when they control the government. That is so weird. During the times where democrats were the majority, republicans seemed to be able to block basically anything all the time. Why can the democrats not do the same shit to the republicans now? Or did they just let the republicans block them back then?
You should look closer at the actual record of what happened. Senate Republicans filibustered bills. Senate Democrats are also doing that. But Republicans when they held a minority were never able to block a budget passed under reconciliation, nor were Democrats ever able to do so.
The only times (since the turn of the millennium) the floor rules changed to end obstruction were when Harry Reid's Senate majority removed the filibuster for federal judge appointments except for the SCOTUS, and when Mitch McConnell's majority then removed the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments.
McConnell also pioneered the strategy of controlling the Senate floor schedule to simply prevent votes on things the House passed, but that's a power the Senate Majority Leader has and is irrelevant right now. I don't recall Schumer ever having to do this because stuff the Republican-controlled House in 2023-2024 passed was such dogshit that he didn't have to worry about the Democratic-controlled Senate voting for it.
|
|
|
Oh, you wanna double down on your lie? Ok, lets do this.
Deportations Are Starting to Trend Higher
Trump told TIME last year he wanted to target 15 million people for removal. He said he was open to using the military to do it, in the face of restrictions in the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the use of the military on U.S. soil. In a campaign interview with ABC News in August, J.D. Vance said, “Let’s start with 1 million.”
At the end of April, the Administration said it had deported more than 139,000 migrants, which was behind pace to reach their aggressive targets. That is a reflection of just how time-consuming and challenging it is to find and remove people living in communities. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security provided TIME with updated figures from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin: more than 207,000 deported. That represents a significant increase in the Administration's deportations and may reflect the more sweeping and intrusive actions immigration officials have taken in recent weeks. For context, the federal government deported 271,484 people in the 2024 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.
https://time.com/7292939/trump-deportations-ice-arrests/
And here's an even more thorough analysis from The Independent. It goes through the whole matter of deportation step by step without leaving anything at the door. Feel free to read all of it, it's very enlightening. I doubt you'll actually read it, but hey. I'm an optimist at heart. Maybe you'll prove me wrong for a change.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-deportation-numbers-obama-biden-b2649257.html
Your articles by Reuters and Yahoo are from March and they don't address total deportations.
Your Newsweek article, which is from May, confirms the numbers I posted.
A senior U.S. Department of Homeland Security official told Newsweek that the were "just the beginning."
Likewise the NBC article, also from May, confirms the strongly increased pace of deportations. And they also reported a consistent month-to-month increase in 2025.
In April, the latest month for which the data is available, ICE deported over 17,200 people, an increase of about 29% compared with April 2024, when over 13,300 were deported.
Deportations in April were up more than 50% over February, when ICE deported around 11,000 people, and almost 40% over March, when just more than 12,300 people were deported.
Your Vox article is kinda useful, but not exactly precise either. It just refers to "deportations" without explanation.
Interestingly though they're claiming that border crossings have dropped massively between 2024 and 2025.
In March, border apprehensions fell to 7,181, a 95 percent decrease from March 2024.
No mention of other months, but a pretty clear example of how things can be skewed when viewed from just one angle.
|
DJT has not hit on most of his big talking points from the election, other than immigration. Ukraine war did not stop day one, Israel and Hamas still fighting, Cost of living is up, No manufacturing has run back to the US, has decreased Health care and social security.
He's sucking on everything not culture war related, but that is strangely what is most important to many/most of his supporters.
|
I think you gotta distinguish between "Has done" and "has tried to do". The argument here was that he has taken actions which definitively relate to a lot of the stuff he said.
He definitively did try to do stuff about Ukraine, and he did the tariff stuff.
His actions just don't really work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
