|
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 15 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:GH, outside of both being unacceptable, which I’d agree with myself, + Show Spoiler +do you believe there is no meaningful difference in policy as regards Israel/Palestine between this GOP admin and what a hypothetical Harris one would have done?
I believe we should stop there and maybe look toward (at least preparing) an AmeriMaidan? Trump is apparently Putin's lackey and US democracy is only getting more unsalvageable the longer we wait.
|
Northern Ireland26058 Posts
On July 15 2025 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:GH, outside of both being unacceptable, which I’d agree with myself, + Show Spoiler +do you believe there is no meaningful difference in policy as regards Israel/Palestine between this GOP admin and what a hypothetical Harris one would have done? I believe we should stop there and maybe look toward (at least preparing) an AmeriMaidan? Trump is apparently Putin's lackey and US democracy is only getting more unsalvageable the longer we wait.
Alternatively you could just answer the question
|
On July 15 2025 11:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:GH, outside of both being unacceptable, which I’d agree with myself, + Show Spoiler +do you believe there is no meaningful difference in policy as regards Israel/Palestine between this GOP admin and what a hypothetical Harris one would have done? I believe we should stop there and maybe look toward (at least preparing) an AmeriMaidan? Trump is apparently Putin's lackey and US democracy is only getting more unsalvageable the longer we wait. Alternatively you could just answer the question
I don't believe it is a meaningful question if we accept they are both unacceptable.
Regardless, I don't believe Israel would be acting significantly differently than it was or is now.
|
On July 15 2025 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Kwark, GH, and BlackJack would all benefit from realizing they are all pursuing the same goal and they just have deeply differing underlying assumptions as to how that goal can be achieved.
All of you know I'd rather eat my own dick than endorse moral relativism. So that's not the argument I am making. But I think "within reason", many different views can be described as "people with the same goal working with different information".
As an example, I would say Romney and Bernie have roughly the same *deep* goals: Reduce suffering, increase prosperity, allow people to live happy lives. Even if that manifests as Romney being adamantly against some things Bernie wants, I think if we examined "why doesn't Romney like Bernie's idea", we would find the answer is "because Romney thinks it wouldn't work, and the effect would be negative rather than positive".
People like Mike Lee and Joe Manchin do not have the same goals as Romney/Bernie. They fundamentally don't actually care if the world improves. They want to benefit from holding elected offices in specific ways similar to how all of us have jobs to achieve our non-job goals.
Broadly speaking, I think people here should be less offended when someone thinks their idea is stupid and they should instead try to find where their assumptions diverge. That's how I generally conduct most conversations here and I think it makes the dynamic less antagonistic and more productive. It might be a reason I tend to not get offended when people blast me for this or that. I always assume a major difference in political opinion is rooted in miss-communication or our "fact list" of basic assumptions are different. In both cases, drilling down the root-cause of disagreement is the right way to go. And its way more fun.
You got it.
I'd add one thing, you don't have to agree with that. In my opinion if someone uses GH as a punching bag and puts more energy into that than into exposing right-wingers, then you know what their true priorities are. We can read people's intent by their allies as much as by their enemies. If someone puts significantly less time into attacking a Trump supporter than into attacking a, lets use the word "misguided", left-winger like GH, then that is very telling. There are quite a few people in here who seem to think GH is as big of a problem as oBlade.
I understand that GH is more of an ally to me. He just doesn't want to accept that lesser-evilism - despite its many shortcomings - is an overall valid approach. His denial of that is not a sufficient reason for me to spend any meaningful amount of time caring about his frequent stabs. He can stab away because it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Priorities.
|
On July 15 2025 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 11:55 WombaT wrote:On July 15 2025 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:GH, outside of both being unacceptable, which I’d agree with myself, + Show Spoiler +do you believe there is no meaningful difference in policy as regards Israel/Palestine between this GOP admin and what a hypothetical Harris one would have done? I believe we should stop there and maybe look toward (at least preparing) an AmeriMaidan? Trump is apparently Putin's lackey and US democracy is only getting more unsalvageable the longer we wait. Alternatively you could just answer the question I don't believe it is a meaningful question if we accept they are both unacceptable. Regardless, I don't believe Israel would be acting significantly differently than it was or is now.
I don't think Israel would've attacked Iran if Harris had been president. I believe she would've made clear that the US does not have their back there and the US would not have joined in the attack.
That seems like a meaningful difference. I also think there would've been more pressure to ensure aid got through, a condemnation of Israel's behaviour toward NGOs trying to bring aid, etc. Would any of this have made a meaningful difference to Gazans? Probably not, but it might've.
Numbers are, for obvious reasons impossible. Unless you can get Dr Strange to portal us between alternate universes.
|
On July 15 2025 14:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 11:55 WombaT wrote:On July 15 2025 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:GH, outside of both being unacceptable, which I’d agree with myself, + Show Spoiler +do you believe there is no meaningful difference in policy as regards Israel/Palestine between this GOP admin and what a hypothetical Harris one would have done? I believe we should stop there and maybe look toward (at least preparing) an AmeriMaidan? Trump is apparently Putin's lackey and US democracy is only getting more unsalvageable the longer we wait. Alternatively you could just answer the question I don't believe it is a meaningful question if we accept they are both unacceptable. Regardless, I don't believe Israel would be acting significantly differently than it was or is now. I don't think Israel would've attacked Iran if Harris had been president. I believe she would've made clear that the US does not have their back there and the US would not have joined in the attack. That seems like a meaningful difference. I also think there would've been more pressure to ensure aid got through, a condemnation of Israel's behaviour toward NGOs trying to bring aid, etc. Would any of this have made a meaningful difference to Gazans? Probably not, but it might've. Numbers are, for obvious reasons impossible. Unless you can get Dr Strange to portal us between alternate universes.
Israel has attacked Iran plenty of times before under other US presidents. Nothing indicates they would've refrained from any acts of aggression under Harris.
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2022/aug/11/timeline-israeli-attacks-iran
|
On July 15 2025 14:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 11:55 WombaT wrote:On July 15 2025 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:GH, outside of both being unacceptable, which I’d agree with myself, + Show Spoiler +do you believe there is no meaningful difference in policy as regards Israel/Palestine between this GOP admin and what a hypothetical Harris one would have done? I believe we should stop there and maybe look toward (at least preparing) an AmeriMaidan? Trump is apparently Putin's lackey and US democracy is only getting more unsalvageable the longer we wait. Alternatively you could just answer the question I don't believe it is a meaningful question if we accept they are both unacceptable. Regardless, I don't believe Israel would be acting significantly differently than it was or is now. I don't think Israel would've attacked Iran if Harris had been president. I believe she would've made clear that the US does not have their back there and the US would not have joined in the attack. + Show Spoiler +
That seems like a meaningful difference. I also think there would've been more pressure to ensure aid got through, a condemnation of Israel's behaviour toward NGOs trying to bring aid, etc. Would any of this have made a meaningful difference to Gazans? Probably not, but it might've.
Numbers are, for obvious reasons impossible. Unless you can get Dr Strange to portal us between alternate universes.
Have you heard that from her? If she doesn't believe it, seems silly for you to.
|
On July 15 2025 14:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Kwark, GH, and BlackJack would all benefit from realizing they are all pursuing the same goal and they just have deeply differing underlying assumptions as to how that goal can be achieved.
All of you know I'd rather eat my own dick than endorse moral relativism. So that's not the argument I am making. But I think "within reason", many different views can be described as "people with the same goal working with different information".
As an example, I would say Romney and Bernie have roughly the same *deep* goals: Reduce suffering, increase prosperity, allow people to live happy lives. Even if that manifests as Romney being adamantly against some things Bernie wants, I think if we examined "why doesn't Romney like Bernie's idea", we would find the answer is "because Romney thinks it wouldn't work, and the effect would be negative rather than positive".
People like Mike Lee and Joe Manchin do not have the same goals as Romney/Bernie. They fundamentally don't actually care if the world improves. They want to benefit from holding elected offices in specific ways similar to how all of us have jobs to achieve our non-job goals.
Broadly speaking, I think people here should be less offended when someone thinks their idea is stupid and they should instead try to find where their assumptions diverge. That's how I generally conduct most conversations here and I think it makes the dynamic less antagonistic and more productive. It might be a reason I tend to not get offended when people blast me for this or that. I always assume a major difference in political opinion is rooted in miss-communication or our "fact list" of basic assumptions are different. In both cases, drilling down the root-cause of disagreement is the right way to go. And its way more fun. You got it. I'd add one thing, you don't have to agree with that. In my opinion if someone uses GH as a punching bag and puts more energy into that than into exposing right-wingers, then you know what their true priorities are. We can read people's intent by their allies as much as by their enemies. If someone puts significantly less time into attacking a Trump supporter than into attacking a, lets use the word "misguided", left-winger like GH, then that is very telling. There are quite a few people in here who seem to think GH is as big of a problem as oBlade. I understand that GH is more of an ally to me. He just doesn't want to accept that lesser-evilism - despite its many shortcomings - is an overall valid approach. His denial of that is not a sufficient reason for me to spend any meaningful amount of time caring about his frequent stabs. He can stab away because it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Priorities.
Maybe you should spend less time attacking people who don't attack Trump supporters enough and attack Trump supporters more.
|
On July 15 2025 19:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 14:26 Magic Powers wrote:On July 15 2025 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Kwark, GH, and BlackJack would all benefit from realizing they are all pursuing the same goal and they just have deeply differing underlying assumptions as to how that goal can be achieved.
All of you know I'd rather eat my own dick than endorse moral relativism. So that's not the argument I am making. But I think "within reason", many different views can be described as "people with the same goal working with different information".
As an example, I would say Romney and Bernie have roughly the same *deep* goals: Reduce suffering, increase prosperity, allow people to live happy lives. Even if that manifests as Romney being adamantly against some things Bernie wants, I think if we examined "why doesn't Romney like Bernie's idea", we would find the answer is "because Romney thinks it wouldn't work, and the effect would be negative rather than positive".
People like Mike Lee and Joe Manchin do not have the same goals as Romney/Bernie. They fundamentally don't actually care if the world improves. They want to benefit from holding elected offices in specific ways similar to how all of us have jobs to achieve our non-job goals.
Broadly speaking, I think people here should be less offended when someone thinks their idea is stupid and they should instead try to find where their assumptions diverge. That's how I generally conduct most conversations here and I think it makes the dynamic less antagonistic and more productive. It might be a reason I tend to not get offended when people blast me for this or that. I always assume a major difference in political opinion is rooted in miss-communication or our "fact list" of basic assumptions are different. In both cases, drilling down the root-cause of disagreement is the right way to go. And its way more fun. You got it. I'd add one thing, you don't have to agree with that. In my opinion if someone uses GH as a punching bag and puts more energy into that than into exposing right-wingers, then you know what their true priorities are. We can read people's intent by their allies as much as by their enemies. If someone puts significantly less time into attacking a Trump supporter than into attacking a, lets use the word "misguided", left-winger like GH, then that is very telling. There are quite a few people in here who seem to think GH is as big of a problem as oBlade. I understand that GH is more of an ally to me. He just doesn't want to accept that lesser-evilism - despite its many shortcomings - is an overall valid approach. His denial of that is not a sufficient reason for me to spend any meaningful amount of time caring about his frequent stabs. He can stab away because it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Priorities. Maybe you should spend less time attacking people who don't attack Trump supporters enough and attack Trump supporters more.
You addressed this response to the wrong person. No clue what you're talking about.
|
Northern Ireland26058 Posts
On July 15 2025 14:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 11:55 WombaT wrote:On July 15 2025 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:GH, outside of both being unacceptable, which I’d agree with myself, + Show Spoiler +do you believe there is no meaningful difference in policy as regards Israel/Palestine between this GOP admin and what a hypothetical Harris one would have done? I believe we should stop there and maybe look toward (at least preparing) an AmeriMaidan? Trump is apparently Putin's lackey and US democracy is only getting more unsalvageable the longer we wait. Alternatively you could just answer the question I don't believe it is a meaningful question if we accept they are both unacceptable. Regardless, I don't believe Israel would be acting significantly differently than it was or is now. I don't think Israel would've attacked Iran if Harris had been president. I believe she would've made clear that the US does not have their back there and the US would not have joined in the attack. That seems like a meaningful difference. I also think there would've been more pressure to ensure aid got through, a condemnation of Israel's behaviour toward NGOs trying to bring aid, etc. Would any of this have made a meaningful difference to Gazans? Probably not, but it might've. Numbers are, for obvious reasons impossible. Unless you can get Dr Strange to portal us between alternate universes.
I also don’t think you get the attempt to crack down on protests, nor things like booting out South African diplomats partly in response to the ICJ genocide case that was brought.
Yeah, perhaps the difference is simply that of a bit more lip service that doesn’t meaningfully manifest in improved conditions.
I’m pretty tight with Dr Strange I’ll see if he can help me out
|
On July 15 2025 21:13 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 14:26 Acrofales wrote:On July 15 2025 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 11:55 WombaT wrote:On July 15 2025 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2025 10:32 WombaT wrote:GH, outside of both being unacceptable, which I’d agree with myself, + Show Spoiler +do you believe there is no meaningful difference in policy as regards Israel/Palestine between this GOP admin and what a hypothetical Harris one would have done? I believe we should stop there and maybe look toward (at least preparing) an AmeriMaidan? Trump is apparently Putin's lackey and US democracy is only getting more unsalvageable the longer we wait. Alternatively you could just answer the question I don't believe it is a meaningful question if we accept they are both unacceptable. Regardless, I don't believe Israel would be acting significantly differently than it was or is now. I don't think Israel would've attacked Iran if Harris had been president. I believe she would've made clear that the US does not have their back there and the US would not have joined in the attack. That seems like a meaningful difference. I also think there would've been more pressure to ensure aid got through, a condemnation of Israel's behaviour toward NGOs trying to bring aid, etc. Would any of this have made a meaningful difference to Gazans? Probably not, but it might've. Numbers are, for obvious reasons impossible. Unless you can get Dr Strange to portal us between alternate universes. I also don’t think you get the attempt to crack down on protests, + Show Spoiler +nor things like booting out South African diplomats partly in response to the ICJ genocide case that was brought.
Yeah, perhaps the difference is simply that of a bit more lip service that doesn’t meaningfully manifest in improved conditions.
I’m pretty tight with Dr Strange I’ll see if he can help me out
What?
BTW, my question about numbers was comparing Biden-Harris to Trump-Vance. As in "By the numbers, how has Trump's support for Israel functionally been worse than Biden/Harris' lip service on Gaza/Palestine while they were supporting Israel". No Dr. Strange required.
|
|
|
"WASHINGTON — Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., has been leading the probe into Joe Biden’s cognitive state during his presidency, with Republicans alleging that Biden's occasional use of an “autopen” to sign documents — a practice other presidents have done as well — demonstrated that he wasn’t fully in control or aware of what his administration was doing.
But documents show that some of the letters and subpoena notices Comer has sent out in connection to his investigation have been signed using a digital signature — not written by the congressman himself."
So it seems that James Comer is still on Trump's side of doing anything he can to distract from Trump's failures and connections with Epstein. I'm not particularly surprised; who can really blame Comer, since clearly his own use of a digital signature indicates that he's "not fully in control or aware" of what he's doing.
Apparently, presidential interest in streamlining signatures dates back to as early as Thomas Jefferson, and more modern "autopen" usage is confirmed for Truman, Ford, Obama, Biden, and Donald Fucking Trump: "In March 2025, President Trump, while admitting that he sometimes uses an autopen,[24]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen#U.S._presidents
|
On July 15 2025 03:32 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2025 03:27 KT_Elwood wrote:
Hamas still openly advocates and fights for a genocide of jews in Israel.
Apart from the right-wing nationalists in Israel, basicly nobody is in favor of a genocide in gaza. Except for Trump, who openly voiced his support of genocide.
I give Trump the benefit of the doubt. everyone who isn't more rich or more powerful than him, isn't even human to him.
So in his mind.. making people go away is just as honking at pidgeons sitting in your parking spot - but no vile idea of killing humans.
They just go live somwhere else!
|
United States43251 Posts
Trump accidentally signed an order withdrawing US forces from bases around the globe that his bagman drafted and put in front of him. As always, gaslight, obstruct, project.
|
On July 15 2025 22:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:"WASHINGTON — Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., has been leading the probe into Joe Biden’s cognitive state during his presidency, with Republicans alleging that Biden's occasional use of an “autopen” to sign documents — a practice other presidents have done as well — demonstrated that he wasn’t fully in control or aware of what his administration was doing. But documents show that some of the letters and subpoena notices Comer has sent out in connection to his investigation have been signed using a digital signature — not written by the congressman himself." So it seems that James Comer is still on Trump's side of doing anything he can to distract from Trump's failures and connections with Epstein. I'm not particularly surprised; who can really blame Comer, since clearly his own use of a digital signature indicates that he's "not fully in control or aware" of what he's doing. Apparently, presidential interest in streamlining signatures dates back to as early as Thomas Jefferson, and more modern "autopen" usage is confirmed for Truman, Ford, Obama, Biden, and Donald Fucking Trump: "In March 2025, President Trump, while admitting that he sometimes uses an autopen,[24]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen#U.S._presidents
The problem is not someone with a full deck physically using an autopen inasmuch as it's that if you have legal documents signed by autopen by a guy who was a near vegetable, it's necessary to investigate whether anyone around him surreptitiously usurped his authority or whether the uses of autopen came from him. People have been pretending to be president since the days of Woodrow Wilson.
|
United States43251 Posts
So naturally you're extremely concerned about Donald Trump who routinely signs things without any idea what they are and is currently president. Far more concerned about him and the huge potential for damage that he represents than about whether Biden, who is not president, might somehow retake the presidency and autopen things.
|
I wonder what Stormfront's opinion would be if he found out his child rapist president Trump used an autopen when ordering the cover-up of the Epstein list.
|
On July 16 2025 01:41 KwarK wrote:
So naturally you're extremely concerned about Donald Trump who routinely signs things without any idea what they are and is currently president. Far more concerned about him and the huge potential for damage that he represents than about whether Biden, who is not president, might somehow retake the presidency and autopen things.
Again, the problem is not Biden using the autopen per se.
The problem is someone who is not Biden using the autopen, Biden not noticing what happened, everyone else in the circle assuming it was Biden's intention and not questioning it, and people like you years later seeing Biden's signature and going "What's wrong with that? Everyone uses autopen, so what if Biden did, which obviously he did because it's his signature so who else could have signed it using his autopen other than himself?"
Just because things are in the past doesn't mean you shouldn't investigate them because they've already happened. That's in fact the best time to investigate. It's much harder to investigate the future.
|
So who's following child rapist Donald Trump around to make sure he's approved of all of the documents he signed with an autopen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
