|
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 August 04 2025 03:56 Acrofales wrote:
Granted, I'm neither in the US not chronically online, but it seems to me BJ brought this up, which is entirely on-brand for him, and then the thread discussed *that*. I'd say that's on-brand too, but GH would probably point out that the Epstein stuff is also a pointless distraction.
Whether or not the Trumpstein scandal matters was indeed mentioned by GH (who in turn was referencing Pelosi):
On July 22 2025 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2025 20:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 21 2025 19:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2025 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I think you guys mean that the Epstein stuff is a distraction? From all the fascism, regressive politics, removal of civil rights, and destruction of America's future? Fair point. On July 21 2025 19:47 Simberto wrote:On July 21 2025 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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? 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. I was just biting PelosiI suspect that there will be a bipartisan gaslighting effort to put the Epstein conspiracy behind us and look forward.
Of course, the Trumpstein scandal is still more politically relevant than BlackJack's projection of Obsessively-Bringing-Up-Sydney-Sweeney onto liberals, and GH also found it reasonable to make a comment or two about Trumpstein:
On July 24 2025 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Considering how Trump talked about Epstein, it's hard for me to believe much of anyone that went as far as going to his island didn't at least know what he was up to there. That's not as bad as doing it yourself, but it's not a lot better.
The people that have a random photo with him at a fancy party I could believe were more or less oblivious (but barely).
|
|
|
On August 04 2025 04:55 KT_Elwood wrote:
On a related note:
"Shockingly bad jobs report reveals a monthslong stall and may trigger Fed rate cuts soon. ‘Powell is going to regret holding rates steady’"
https://fortune.com/2025/08/01/jobs-report-july-downward-revisions-fed-rate-cuts-jerome-powell/
"Markets slump on tariffs and jobs data as Trump fires labor bureau statistics chief
Markets rattled: US stocks were battered by a sell-off today as Wall Street reckoned with President Donald Trump’s tariff regime.
Jobs official fired: Trump this afternoon fired Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whom he accused, without evidence, of manipulating the monthly jobs reports for “political purposes.” US job growth stalled in July, with just 73,000 jobs added, while May and June totals were revised down by a combined 258,000."
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/trade-deadline-tariffs-trump-deals
"US labor market cracks widen as job growth hits stall speed
U.S. employment growth was weaker than expected in July while the nonfarm payrolls count for the prior two months was revised down by a massive 258,000 jobs, suggesting a sharp deterioration in labor market conditions that puts a September interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve back on the table.
The Labor Department's closely watched employment report on Friday also showed the unemployment rate rose to 4.2% last month as household employment declined. Labor market resilience has shored up the economy amid headwinds from President Donald Trump's aggressive trade and immigration policies."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-labor-market-cracks-widen-job-growth-hits-stall-speed-2025-08-01/
Looks like Trump was hoping that the commissioner would simply fabricate great numbers to make the economy look better than it really is, and then he got pissed when she wouldn't capitulate to him, projecting his fake news / political bullshit onto her.
|
Markets slump (It's up.. from somewhere!)
Dollar down (Imagine Powell would lower rates now... it would basicly be hyperinflation)
Hiring low (Fire everyone who claims it's true)
Real income Inflation going to the moon (not being monitored anymore)
Trump actively fighting the data-driven economy for "trust me bro economics" has brought stagflation upon the globe.
|
On August 04 2025 04:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2025 03:56 Acrofales wrote:
Granted, I'm neither in the US not chronically online, but it seems to me BJ brought this up, which is entirely on-brand for him, and then the thread discussed *that*. I'd say that's on-brand too, but GH would probably point out that the Epstein stuff is also a pointless distraction. Whether or not the Trumpstein scandal matters was indeed mentioned by GH (who in turn was referencing Pelosi): Show nested quote +On July 22 2025 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2025 20:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 21 2025 19:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2025 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I think you guys mean that the Epstein stuff is a distraction? From all the fascism, regressive politics, removal of civil rights, and destruction of America's future? Fair point. On July 21 2025 19:47 Simberto wrote:On July 21 2025 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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? 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. I was just biting PelosiI suspect that there will be a bipartisan gaslighting effort to put the Epstein conspiracy behind us and look forward. Of course, the Trumpstein scandal is still more politically relevant than BlackJack's projection of Obsessively-Bringing-Up-Sydney-Sweeney onto liberals, and GH also found it reasonable to make a comment or two about Trumpstein: Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Considering how Trump talked about Epstein, it's hard for me to believe much of anyone that went as far as going to his island didn't at least know what he was up to there. That's not as bad as doing it yourself, but it's not a lot better.
The people that have a random photo with him at a fancy party I could believe were more or less oblivious (but barely). To be fair, it isn't just Pelosi:
Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Education and the Workforce Committee, went so far as to suggest Republicans deliberately drummed up the Epstein issue
"...Any discussion about Epstein diverts attention from what we ought to be talking about,” Scott said in a recent interview.
“Clearly it’s a distraction,” Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., told NBC
www.nbcnews.com
But they mostly want to talk about Trump's bill which Democrats let him pass. So it's not exactly a great plan for them.
|
On August 04 2025 03:10 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2025 02:56 Gahlo wrote:On August 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote:
I’m out of the loop, what’s going on? Sydney Sweeney is doing an ad campaign with with American Eagle to promote their jeans. In one of the commercials she's talking about genes, how they're passed down and affects things hair color, eye color, and personality as the camera. The camera movement gets to her face and she say "my jeans are blue" and then it goes to campaign's tag line of "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." It just... at best feels like an unforced error to talk about how a conventionally attractive, white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes has "great jeans" after talking about genes the entire commercial. At worst there's "Is this leaning into eugenics?" ick which is amplified by, well, reality. I think it is just competent marketing. People are talking about it. People have opinions and care about it. When was the last time you talked about any ad campaign without controversy? In fact, i think everyone who gets into that discussion just got played by a bunch of advertisement assholes.
"We're going to put out an ad that makes us seem like eugenicists so people talk about us." isn't what I'd consider a W.
|
On August 04 2025 05:57 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2025 03:10 Simberto wrote:On August 04 2025 02:56 Gahlo wrote:On August 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote:
I’m out of the loop, what’s going on? Sydney Sweeney is doing an ad campaign with with American Eagle to promote their jeans. In one of the commercials she's talking about genes, how they're passed down and affects things hair color, eye color, and personality as the camera. The camera movement gets to her face and she say "my jeans are blue" and then it goes to campaign's tag line of "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." It just... at best feels like an unforced error to talk about how a conventionally attractive, white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes has "great jeans" after talking about genes the entire commercial. At worst there's "Is this leaning into eugenics?" ick which is amplified by, well, reality. I think it is just competent marketing. People are talking about it. People have opinions and care about it. When was the last time you talked about any ad campaign without controversy? In fact, i think everyone who gets into that discussion just got played by a bunch of advertisement assholes. "We're going to put out an ad that makes us seem like eugenicists so people talk about us." isn't what I'd consider a W.
Unfortunately, a lot of us thought that being pro-rape or pro-racism or pro-sexism or pro-fascism or pro-Nazi weren't going to be wins either, and I imagine that MAGA alone could easily support American Eagle if they think that supporting American Eagle will pwn th3 libs (that brand - any brand, really - probably doesn't need bipartisan support to make some good money).
|
On August 04 2025 06:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2025 05:57 Gahlo wrote:On August 04 2025 03:10 Simberto wrote:On August 04 2025 02:56 Gahlo wrote:On August 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote:
I’m out of the loop, what’s going on? Sydney Sweeney is doing an ad campaign with with American Eagle to promote their jeans. In one of the commercials she's talking about genes, how they're passed down and affects things hair color, eye color, and personality as the camera. The camera movement gets to her face and she say "my jeans are blue" and then it goes to campaign's tag line of "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." It just... at best feels like an unforced error to talk about how a conventionally attractive, white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes has "great jeans" after talking about genes the entire commercial. At worst there's "Is this leaning into eugenics?" ick which is amplified by, well, reality. I think it is just competent marketing. People are talking about it. People have opinions and care about it. When was the last time you talked about any ad campaign without controversy? In fact, i think everyone who gets into that discussion just got played by a bunch of advertisement assholes. "We're going to put out an ad that makes us seem like eugenicists so people talk about us." isn't what I'd consider a W. Unfortunately, a lot of us thought that being pro-rape or pro-racism or pro-sexism or pro-fascism or pro-Nazi weren't going to be wins either, and I imagine that MAGA alone could easily support American Eagle if they think that supporting American Eagle will pwn th3 libs (that brand - any brand, really - probably doesn't need bipartisan support to make some good money).
That's not working out too well for Target.
|
On August 04 2025 06:49 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2025 06:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 04 2025 05:57 Gahlo wrote:On August 04 2025 03:10 Simberto wrote:On August 04 2025 02:56 Gahlo wrote:On August 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote:
I’m out of the loop, what’s going on? Sydney Sweeney is doing an ad campaign with with American Eagle to promote their jeans. In one of the commercials she's talking about genes, how they're passed down and affects things hair color, eye color, and personality as the camera. The camera movement gets to her face and she say "my jeans are blue" and then it goes to campaign's tag line of "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." It just... at best feels like an unforced error to talk about how a conventionally attractive, white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes has "great jeans" after talking about genes the entire commercial. At worst there's "Is this leaning into eugenics?" ick which is amplified by, well, reality. I think it is just competent marketing. People are talking about it. People have opinions and care about it. When was the last time you talked about any ad campaign without controversy? In fact, i think everyone who gets into that discussion just got played by a bunch of advertisement assholes. "We're going to put out an ad that makes us seem like eugenicists so people talk about us." isn't what I'd consider a W. Unfortunately, a lot of us thought that being pro-rape or pro-racism or pro-sexism or pro-fascism or pro-Nazi weren't going to be wins either, and I imagine that MAGA alone could easily support American Eagle if they think that supporting American Eagle will pwn th3 libs (that brand - any brand, really - probably doesn't need bipartisan support to make some good money). That's not working out too well for Target.
Yeah that's a fair counterexample.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://preview.redd.it/soon-in-the-united-states-v0-1w3creleisgf1.jpeg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=df8a3b5d68e59c0c56d14873e411f0737c58fe65)
