EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5119
| 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 | ||
KwarK
United States42653 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
On July 21 2025 11:24 BlackJack wrote: I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.” Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports. As Serm points out, the USWNT is almost a unique case. If there’s another country in the globe with a reasonably lucrative market where the sport of football has historically been a bigger deal on the lady’s side of the ledger, I’m not aware of it. And I’m a complete football fanatic, especially when it comes to culture/history and stuff off the pitch. I think there is a problem, from both ‘sides’ of the aisle on this one, where very different scenarios get conflated into one ‘equal pay’ package. Such are the auld culture wars alas. Going back to a previous point I made re football and money for time/appearances representing one’s country, the English Football Association equalised that in 2020. For an elite men’s player the money is fuck all, and the team have long made a point of donating their match fees. For the women, it’s slightly less than fuck all as their salaries are way lower from their regular gigs, but they donate as well. It may seem silly to quibble about match fees when both sides donate them anyway, but I think symbolically it sends the right message. The problem for me comes when something like that is lumped together with say, WNBA players negotiating their new collective bargaining agreement. Because they’re lumped together thus, someone like Megan Raphinoe and what she said will be used as a stick to beat say, Caitlyn Clark. When perhaps they’re not actually that connected bar being ladies. IDK, it’s definitely something I’ve observed a lot on various sports forums I peruse, other’s mileage may vary. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
On July 21 2025 11:37 KwarK wrote: I mean he was elected to fight for white male privilege in a culture war so yeah, kinda. That kind of nonsense may seem trivial and beneath the dignity of the office to people not invested in white male fragility but if you’re the kind of person who is triggered by not being able to say the n word in public anymore then this is top priority. It’s ultimately trivial nonsense but yeah under the surface that really is the mentality. It’s not consistent either. If one wants to make the argument that the Redskins or the Indians are names with a lot of history over the years and why change it, then one runs into the ‘Gulf of America’ problem. As per usual, the usual suspects are more guilty than most they accuse of various things. Absolute peak sensitive snowflake behaviour. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On July 21 2025 11:24 BlackJack wrote: I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.” Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports. I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened. The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were. The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms. Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line. Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment. One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience. To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16699 Posts
If a name change is in order it should be something like the Washington Anacostans. They should get the Anacostans involved in the logo design. If the Anacostans like the old Redskins logo they should use it. If the Anacostans prefer "Redskins" then go with Redskins. Negotiate with whatever group of people is being referred to in the name "Washington Redskins". I suspect it is the Anacostans. Anyhow, come up with a consensus, make a name change and then give them a cut of the merchandise sales because its their name on it. If Washington does not want to give the people referred to in their name a cut of the merch then they can call them the Washington Bureaucrats. This process does not require the input of the leader of the country protecting the free world. Also, if the Anacostans want a humourous take on the Washington logo along the lines of the Leprechaun of notre dame... then give it to them. This does not necessarily have to be some super serious statement. If the Chicago Blackhawks can pull it off I'm sure Washington can do it as well. My high school was run by a bunch of politically correct zealots so we were not allowed to call the Washington NFL team by its nickname. We acquiesced to their demand by calling the team the Washington "Foreskins".  Any how, if the guys running Washington are smart... and put together a good process and take their time... there could easily be a giant pile of merchandise money at the end of this banal fiasco. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5583 Posts
After 2020 the Department of Defense paid $2 million for a commission to figure out options for renaming things. Because they couldn't just have the existing personnel do that. Then they changed the names of so-called controversial things at the cost of $60 million. The Gulf of Mexico or Gulf of America is just water, it's not really owned or lived in or supported by anybody. Maybe the oil guys or fishermen would think different, but for the vast majority of the country it could be called the United Sea for all we care. For the Harvey Milk, the problem was naming it that way to begin with, so I'm good with fixing the name. Basically names are important but they also shouldn't be that difficult to get right the first time. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10495 Posts
On July 21 2025 14:18 Sermokala wrote: I think you've gravely misunderstood my post and the reality of what happened. The misinformation campaign was successful in demonizing a lot of the women, especially Rapinoe, as you've demonstrated. The women were asking to be paid equally as the men were for the revenue they were generating, which they weren't before and wouldn't have if they didn't sue for it. Their compensation being greater before was due to health insurance, which couldn't be accurately costed at best, but was used by US soccer to excuse why the women weren't due the same split of revenue generated as the men were. The period in question was even starker as it was the period where the women were winning world cups and dominating the worlds game, while the men failed to even qualify for the world cup. Yet in this period the women were asked to take less in compensation not only in comparison to the men but in real terms. Yes that argument that women should receive an equal split to revenue as the men do in other sports can be used against women when they generate less revenue. But in the case of the WNBA the revenue they bring to the NBA by bringing in female fans and insulating it from the kind of anti women PR that the NFL and NHL is not being represented by the compensation they're receiving. The NBA wasn't even putting much effort into increasing the revenue of the WNBA because they weren't incentivized to. The WNBA teams are all owned by NBA teams, there is no reason for them to become more profitable when they're already achieving their purpose. The more money the WNBA loses, as long as it doesn't get out of control, doesn't change the NBA teams bottom line. Yes they should be paid more, It should be in both parties best interest for them to be paid more, it isn't at the moment. One of the big bats they used against Rapinoe was when she pointed out that the women being used to market us soccer were portrayed as white girl next door types. Rapinoe was hardly in anything due to her being a very outspoken lesbian. Meanwhile the average WNBA player is a large black woman who is not conventionally attractive to the white audience. To explain my bias Rapinoe is my favorite soccer player ever, she was capable of making dangerous moments out of sheer techincal ability. The womens game is much more technical and tactical than the mens as the mens game has devolved into a more physical and system based game. You get much better reffed games with the women despite the much lower pay due to this as well. The difference is that the women opted for a different pay structure. The men's team made no salary but the women's team made $100,000 salary. The men's team has bigger bonuses for world cup victories. But you only hear about the latter: how men get paid more for winning a world cup match. You never hear about the women players earning a $100,000 salary while the men get diddly squat for salary. So the women opted for a CBA with guaranteed salary but they realized that if they had taken the mens deal that gave more money for victories they would have earned a lot more since the US women's team is very dominant. The judge in one of their lawsuits mentions that the women were offered the same pay structure as the men but they declined it. They wanted to retroactively get the pay structure of the men's CBA even after declining it when they were offered it. Of course all that is aside from the point that the women actually earned more $ per match than the men's team during the contested years. Also have no idea why you keep mentioning health insurance. The women's CBA guaranteed health insurance for the players while the men's CBA made no mention of health insurance. Also your implication that they were holding health insurance over their head as a way "to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty" is ridiculous. They are making well into the 6 figures. What do you think poverty is? | ||
|
Sadist
United States7227 Posts
The name change stuff is never going to happen for Cleveland or Washington. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44300 Posts
On July 21 2025 19:10 Sadist wrote: The name thing is just his latest attempt at a distraction to try to get the epstein stuff out of the news cycle. The name change stuff is never going to happen for Cleveland or Washington. Agreed. When Trump is trying to distract everyone from something he considers to be bad for him, I wonder why he doesn't change the subject to something more positive or better supported, like if there was a small economic victory somewhere for him to brag about, as opposed to him just whining about wanting something so stupid and bigoted. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On July 21 2025 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Agreed. When Trump is trying to distract everyone from something he considers to be bad for him, I wonder why he doesn't change the subject to something more positive or better supported, like if there was a small economic victory somewhere for him to brag about, as opposed to him just whining about wanting something so stupid and bigoted. I think you guys mean that the Epstein stuff is a distraction? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
On July 21 2025 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Agreed. When Trump is trying to distract everyone from something he considers to be bad for him, I wonder why he doesn't change the subject to something more positive or better supported, like if there was a small economic victory somewhere for him to brag about, as opposed to him just whining about wanting something so stupid and bigoted. Anger and controversy get more attention then some small victory. Say something stupid on a theme that your base agrees with, watch the media react and state how stupid it is, watch your base defend you because the media called them stupid, and no one talks about how you fucked little girls anymore. Being rabidly anti-PC is part of Trumps platform. Teams changed their names due to political correctness, and the people who are angry that they cannot even say the N-word anymore dislike this. And the people who don't like Trump love talking about how stupid the thing he just said is. Meanwhile, who is going to talk abot some small positive for more than 3 minutes? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44300 Posts
On July 21 2025 19:29 GreenHorizons wrote: From all the fascism, regressive politics, removal of civil rights, and destruction of America's future? Fair point. I think you guys mean that the Epstein stuff is a distraction? On July 21 2025 19:47 Simberto wrote: Yeah that's true. It's important to distract for as long as possible, and being blatantly racist is certainly a core part of the Trump/MAGA identity. Anger and controversy get more attention then some small victory. Say something stupid on a theme that your base agrees with, watch the media react and state how stupid it is, watch your base defend you because the media called them stupid, and no one talks about how you fucked little girls anymore. Being rabidly anti-PC is part of Trumps platform. Teams changed their names due to political correctness, and the people who are angry that they cannot even say the N-word anymore dislike this. And the people who don't like Trump love talking about how stupid the thing he just said is. Meanwhile, who is going to talk abot some small positive for more than 3 minutes? | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1004 Posts
On July 21 2025 19:29 GreenHorizons wrote: I think you guys mean that the Epstein stuff is a distraction? There's a difference between a distraction that Trump wants people to look at, and a distraction that he doesn't want people to look at. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't want the world to realise that he's a nonce. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On July 21 2025 18:32 BlackJack wrote: The difference is that the women opted for a different pay structure. The men's team made no salary but the women's team made $100,000 salary. The men's team has bigger bonuses for world cup victories. But you only hear about the latter: how men get paid more for winning a world cup match. You never hear about the women players earning a $100,000 salary while the men get diddly squat for salary. So the women opted for a CBA with guaranteed salary but they realized that if they had taken the mens deal that gave more money for victories they would have earned a lot more since the US women's team is very dominant. The judge in one of their lawsuits mentions that the women were offered the same pay structure as the men but they declined it. They wanted to retroactively get the pay structure of the men's CBA even after declining it when they were offered it. Of course all that is aside from the point that the women actually earned more $ per match than the men's team during the contested years. Also have no idea why you keep mentioning health insurance. The women's CBA guaranteed health insurance for the players while the men's CBA made no mention of health insurance. Also your implication that they were holding health insurance over their head as a way "to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty" is ridiculous. They are making well into the 6 figures. What do you think poverty is? This wild misrepresenting of facts is exactly what I'm talking about. The cbas that the men had and the women had represented the different situations both teams had. They were still paid less than the men and would have been paid much less than the men if they axepted the terms that us soccer wanted them to take and tried to get them to take with the misinformation campaign, thus the lawsuit was nessisary. Trying to argue for the old cba while the debate was for the next cba doesn't make any sense. Yes they needed the salary to remain out of poverty while still being soccer players. That 100k doesn't last very long after taxes, travel expenses, and health care that for athletes costs more than regular Jane. Calling it six figures is a classic misinformation line that was used to demonize them. Regular people don't have the same costs professional athletes do, no idea why you would think they would in good faith. The basic mechanics of sports and national teams do not function in the same way as an office job. Yes the women would have made more in compensation compared to the men in the same period, only slightly more despite being an historic difference in performance. This would have also set the president for the next generation to make much less as counting on constantly winning world cups while the men failing to qualify wasn't realistic to expect to continue. Fighting for the next generation is what you're supposed to do in a good society. Yes they were holding health insurance over their heads, the men were getting it from their clubs while the women weren't. If us soccer just cuts their health insurance they then have to start paying for it themselves, while also not getting those "six figure contracts" anymore. The idea that you are confused about why I keep mentioning it while then explaining why I keep mentioning it is just werid. Are you unaware that us soccer lost in court? Do you think that the justice system just sided with women because society is just tilted against men for the love of the game? | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1056 Posts
Well that came out of nowhere. 15 Minutes in, i'll devour the whole thing. Props to Channel 5. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2688 Posts
On July 21 2025 22:59 r00ty wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBbkt2vYC4M Well that came out of nowhere. 15 Minutes in, i'll devour the whole thing. Props to Channel 5. Could you summarise the main points/ tell us why we should watch that? | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2688 Posts
On July 21 2025 21:49 Sermokala wrote: This wild misrepresenting of facts is exactly what I'm talking about. The cbas that the men had and the women had represented the different situations both teams had. They were still paid less than the men and would have been paid much less than the men if they axepted the terms that us soccer wanted them to take and tried to get them to take with the misinformation campaign, thus the lawsuit was nessisary. Trying to argue for the old cba while the debate was for the next cba doesn't make any sense. Yes they needed the salary to remain out of poverty while still being soccer players. That 100k doesn't last very long after taxes, travel expenses, and health care that for athletes costs more than regular Jane. Calling it six figures is a classic misinformation line that was used to demonize them. Regular people don't have the same costs professional athletes do, no idea why you would think they would in good faith. The basic mechanics of sports and national teams do not function in the same way as an office job. Yes the women would have made more in compensation compared to the men in the same period, only slightly more despite being an historic difference in performance. This would have also set the president for the next generation to make much less as counting on constantly winning world cups while the men failing to qualify wasn't realistic to expect to continue. Fighting for the next generation is what you're supposed to do in a good society. Yes they were holding health insurance over their heads, the men were getting it from their clubs while the women weren't. If us soccer just cuts their health insurance they then have to start paying for it themselves, while also not getting those "six figure contracts" anymore. The idea that you are confused about why I keep mentioning it while then explaining why I keep mentioning it is just werid. Are you unaware that us soccer lost in court? Do you think that the justice system just sided with women because society is just tilted against men for the love of the game? Did you just seriously ask BJ to discuss the influence the woke mind virus had on the judicial decision? Are you that eager to derail the thread? | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1056 Posts
On July 21 2025 23:23 EnDeR_ wrote: Could you summarise the main points/ tell us why we should watch that? Sorry for preemptive posting, but regarding how much was claimed about this guy and how important his actions seem to have been, much talked about in this very thread, i considered this to be quite relevant. I see a damaged person, traumatised by events in his childhood, with the usual addiction history following that. Showing signs of prolonged drug abuse, mostly alcohol. Privileged (understated) for sure, not an expert on his global criminal mastermind history, but i think it's some bullshit. Edit2: Pretty smart and very human though. Probably there was some merit for him getting those jobs. Compared to the Trump children... | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16699 Posts
On July 21 2025 20:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yeah that's true. It's important to distract for as long as possible, and being blatantly racist is certainly a core part of the Trump/MAGA identity. MAGA is not well defined though. Its like people throwing around the word "woke". By using "woke" or "maga" you can then begin to ascribe any number of imaginary things to it. During Ronald Reagan's tenure the % of non-white people in America rose substantially. Hardly the actions of a "blatant racist". People have said right winger Hazel Mccallion was racist because she said a couple of rude things. The composition of Mississauga went from almost all white to 55% non-white during her tenure as mayor. Hardly the actions of a "blatant racist". I imagine you can just replaying in your head the 2 or 3 sentences she said for ever though and continue to convince yourself she is a "blatant racist" though. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44300 Posts
On July 21 2025 23:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote: MAGA is not well defined though. Its like people throwing around the word "woke". By using "woke" or "maga" you can then begin to ascribe any number of imaginary things to it. During Ronald Reagan's tenure the % of non-white people in America rose substantially. Hardly the actions of a "blatant racist". People have said right winger Hazel Mccallion was racist because she said a couple of rude things. The composition of Mississauga went from almost all white to 55% non-white during her tenure as mayor. Hardly the actions of a "blatant racist". I imagine you can just replaying in your head the 2 or 3 sentences she said for ever though and continue to convince yourself she is a "blatant racist" though. Not sure why you brought up Reagan and McCallion when the topic was Trump/MAGA. Part of Trump's platforms (in all three previous elections) included intense xenophobia and transparent racism, and that resonated with a lot of his followers. | ||
| ||
