EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5145
| 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 States42696 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44351 Posts
On August 08 2025 23:34 KwarK wrote: I wasn’t aware of Sydney Sweeney. I’m still not but presumably she’s some sort of celebrity/Kardashian. She's an actress. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25379 Posts
On August 08 2025 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote: "Nazi!", "Kill em [cops]!" Old quotes of mine? Inner monologue escaping? Reddit comments about Sydney Sweeney? Maybe, but definitely a new hire at Trump's DOJ. www.npr.org + Show Spoiler + *spiderman meme* If society survives globally, they will have to include so many "This isn't an exaggeration, this actually happened" disclaimers in the movies about the fall of the US. But yeah, Sydney Sweeney amirite? I don’t even have a huge issue pardoning some rioters, but a blanket one? Preposterous. Or entirely plausible within the parameters of a completely broken system. To clarify, I’m not saying hey, coup attempts are a-OK. But such disturbances are often very volatile events, that change on the ground as it were. If you prosecute people simply for being at such events, you defang all kinds of legitimate forms of protest. In the ‘good old days’, if some left-leaning political leader in central or South America had incited such an event, and pardoned perpetrators subsequently you can bet your house that nation would be conferred banana republic status, and no doubt have the CIA knocking on their door imminently. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25379 Posts
On August 08 2025 22:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Clearly, politicians and investment bankers like Rahm Emanuel are the authorities on sex and gender studies. They don’t have to be to be fair, they are however expected to be good at politics. It’s unpalatable but it doesn’t really matter what academics or science says if a giant chunk of the population currently just think trans people are weird. Which I dunno if they are, at least currently time will tell. Their prescription is basically the same as Blackjack’s, Dems are too woke, if we cut out the ‘woke nonsense’ we’ll win’, and they’re clearly banking on that as a component of their platform moving forwards. The problem with that is you have to exactly find the Goldilocks zone. Which is fucking hard. You need to grab more of the ‘I’m OK with x, but some wokeness is too far’ group, while not being seen to throw groups under the bus and lose support elsewhere that wipes out those gains. You’ll also struggle to flip any actual bigots without going extreme enough to lose the aforementioned groups. You also, IMO need some other big wins to run in parallel. I’m actually seeing such a process play out over here in real-time and it ain’t especially pretty reading for Labour, our Dem equivalent (especially now they pivoted centre). They don’t have the big popular policy wins to offset doing things that are unpopular with a lot of the left thru centre left in terms of being ‘anti-woke’. But they’ll also never be anti-woke enough for the right of the country. Because they’ve got a similar problem to the US Dems, in that any random Twitter user is evidence of ‘this is woke Labour Britain’ even if the party itself is pushing in the opposite direction. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1477 Posts
There's no point in Democrats throwing minorities under the bus to strategically appease some bigots, those morons are going to vote Republican anyway. | ||
|
Legan
Finland408 Posts
On August 09 2025 00:35 LightSpectra wrote: Kamala Harris barely ever talked about trans people during the 2024 election but Republicans just lied and said "she's for they/them, we're for YOU" and won anyway. There's no point in Democrats throwing minorities under the bus to strategically appease some bigots, those morons are going to vote Republican anyway. Or maybe those demanding to throw minorities under the bus are not actually satisfied with silence but want Democrats to be openly bigoted, like most Republicans. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44351 Posts
On August 09 2025 00:11 WombaT wrote: They don’t have to be to be fair, they are however expected to be good at politics. It’s unpalatable but it doesn’t really matter what academics or science says if a giant chunk of the population currently just think trans people are weird. Which I dunno if they are, at least currently time will tell. Their prescription is basically the same as Blackjack’s, Dems are too woke, if we cut out the ‘woke nonsense’ we’ll win’, and they’re clearly banking on that as a component of their platform moving forwards. The problem with that is you have to exactly find the Goldilocks zone. Which is fucking hard. You need to grab more of the ‘I’m OK with x, but some wokeness is too far’ group, while not being seen to throw groups under the bus and lose support elsewhere that wipes out those gains. You’ll also struggle to flip any actual bigots without going extreme enough to lose the aforementioned groups. You also, IMO need some other big wins to run in parallel. I’m actually seeing such a process play out over here in real-time and it ain’t especially pretty reading for Labour, our Dem equivalent (especially now they pivoted centre). They don’t have the big popular policy wins to offset doing things that are unpopular with a lot of the left thru centre left in terms of being ‘anti-woke’. But they’ll also never be anti-woke enough for the right of the country. Because they’ve got a similar problem to the US Dems, in that any random Twitter user is evidence of ‘this is woke Labour Britain’ even if the party itself is pushing in the opposite direction. I don't even know if there is a Goldilocks zone anymore, because the goalposts move so frequently and because the most extreme "woke" takes are generally fabricated by Republicans anyway. For example, BlackJack just made up a ridiculous list of things and projected them onto Democrats, and apparently also found some Reddit users who are mad at Sydney Sweeney. Neat. On the other hand, there are actual conservative talking heads with millions of followers, like Ben Shapiro, flipping out about how woke Superman is. Extremely-devoutly-Jewish Ben Shapiro is flipping out about the Nazi-fighting superhero. I don't know if there is room for a Goldilocks zone or a sweet-spot or a "middle" in between being for or against Nazis, or being for or against fighting for people's rights. Even if you found some non-committal non-opinion on something that's worth taking a stance for, the opposition will just make up a stance for you. And when all else fails, they'll just paint/photoshop "MS13" on your knuckles or claim that immigrants are eating your dogs, so it's not like trying to take a measured stance on "being woke" is even possible*. *I also still maintain the fact that being woke means being aware, educated, and compassionate, and Republicans who mock people for being woke are actually conceding their own shortcomings. I think charismatic and believable platforming that appeals to both the left-wing progressives and the moderate Democrats needs to happen, and not all issues will necessarily be as important in courting those votes or finding useful overlap. For example, I think economic issues and taxes are relatively universal to discuss, and some strong platforms that help the working and middle classes could resonate with a large number of voters. On the other hand, I don't think that Kamala Harris would have magically won the popular vote if she had talked about trans issues even 1% as much as Trump did. (Hating trans people may have mobilized some MAGA voters, so demonizing trans people might have been a good move for Trump, but I don't know how galvanizing or tie-breaking of an issue being pro-trans is for non-voters who lean Democrat, so I think it was a fine decision for Harris to stay pretty quiet on that issue too.) | ||
|
oBlade
United States5592 Posts
On August 09 2025 00:35 LightSpectra wrote: Kamala Harris barely ever talked about trans people during the 2024 election but Republicans just lied and said "she's for they/them, we're for YOU" and won anyway. There's no point in Democrats throwing minorities under the bus to strategically appease some bigots, those morons are going to vote Republican anyway. That clever tagline with a low hanging pun (which totally swung the election) - that was a lie how? Is Kamala actually anti-trans? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44351 Posts
On August 09 2025 01:50 oBlade wrote: That clever tagline with a low hanging pun (which totally swung the election) - that was a lie how? Is Kamala actually anti-trans? Because Republicans are probably not interested in helping most people included in the general "you" label (most Americans). | ||
| ||
