|
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 September 05 2025 04:19 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2025 13:40 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom. This idea is funny because the saying I've quoted before is still true, "Republicans act like they will never have power and Democrats act like they will never lose it." I remember in younger days Dems didn't pretend to have so much reverence for the Constitution, in ye olden days they were justifying why Obama had to do X Y Z with his "pen and his phone" because Republicans wouldn't work him. Democrats control the actual machinery of the state at the personnel level. it's why "Dear Colleague letters" never got a hyperventilating reaction when Democrat administrations use them. Because all the dems on power agree with them. Your rule is one I've advocated for quite often , but don't pretend this attitude started with Trump. Trump is a reaction, an escalation. Gee, I wonder where he learned things like using the law to go after his opponents? A real mystery. And now we are here, because one side refused to give up their monopoly on the way government works and the other side stopped caring. I have far more contempt for the people who had the power and refused to let democracy take it from them. There is only one thing that will change where we are. A crisis of some sort, when everything hangs in the balance and compromises must be made. More and more I think it has to get worse before it gets better. Congress will have to be where things change, but they won't do it willingly. When did I do this? But also lets not keep with the false equivalence. I'm going to use golf as an analogy because people lose their perspective when we talk about policy. Trump often complained about Obamas golfing how he shouldn't have time and the cost. Now Trump golfs 25x as often, and he does at his own courses and the staff stay at his hotels, so he is massively profiting personally from Tax payer dollars. So well it is technically true that both Obama and Trump golfed during their presidency, the frequency, personal benefits and costs to the american people are not at all equal. The same is true with how Trump is running his presidency, and I guess you like that. But will you like it when president AOC stacks the supreme court and does whatever she damn well pleases completely ignoring what little rules, checks and balances your system apparently has? Because the door is now open. What I'm asking is that all Americans no matter what team you were born on and have supported no matter how stupid or awful they are, start thinking, hmmm do I want the other side to be able to do this? All of you really need to take a stern look at the rules and concentrate on making them actually sensible and fair. If you think the other side can't have their own maniac populist who ignores all the norms and fucks up your democracy and country you are very naïve. Do you really want to bet your democracy on "your" side winning? And when that has happened in countries has that ever worked out well for the people? Left or right?
That sentence was not directed at you explicitly, although you do go on to match it. You are being far too narrow and ignoring how we got here. In progressive land, we have a sudden reverence for constitutional norms or aversion to executive power that they've been living by. But of course this isn't true. First, recall what I said about the actual machinery of the state. Dems are just fine with a powerful coercive government, because most of the time they either control all of it or at least part of it. Who do you think argued for an expansive view of the civil rights laws this administration is now using to go after places like Harvard?
Or my favorite example: DACA. I remember arguing multiple times over the years about DACA with people here who insisted that it was ok and even good! because it was A) the "right thing to do" and B) that since Republicans wouldn't work with Obama on giving them citizenship, that it was ok for him to implement that program. I don't want to hear a single word about the Constitution or abusing norms from people who gave Obama a pass on DACA, who thought Biden trying to wipe out hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt with his pen was ok, or the people who cheered when a local NYC prosecutor went after Trump for paperwork that he claimed would change the election when it was impossible for it to have done so. Or when a president exercises the other great power he has: to not enforce the law. Like Biden did with the border for years. Now, Trump comes in to undo the first lawless action and once again everyone lights their hair in fire.
Just like with the Dobbs decision, what most Democrats mean by "Democracy" and "norms" is "we win" and facism is just when they lose. The different agencies of the federal government should have considered what they were doing when they try to impede Republican presidents from lawfully implementing their agendas. The thing is, slippery slopes are...slippery. Trump wins a nailbiter in 2016 and so many people are spun up into hysterics. How was that for the national temperature? Biden is elected by a similarly slim electoral college win and everyone, including Biden himself, thinks he was elected to re-make the world in his image. How did that work out?
I agree with you, we should all abide by the maxim that we should never take more power than we would give our enemies. Problem is, Democrats don't actually believe their enemies should ever be allowed to have power. And thus we are here. If one side wins by the rules but doesn't get to govern within them, then maybe next time they win they'll just ignore them all together? Sorry, I don't take this argument sincerely when it's only applied to Trump, when the same people yelping now spent the last 15 years arguing that the Constitution was a hopelessly flawed document tainted from the beginning by evil and thus should be given as little reference or reverence as possible.
Again, I have far more disdain for the people who thought that the power was theirs by right of being right. But unfortunately, the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.
|
On September 05 2025 11:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2025 04:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 04 2025 13:40 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom. This idea is funny because the saying I've quoted before is still true, "Republicans act like they will never have power and Democrats act like they will never lose it." I remember in younger days Dems didn't pretend to have so much reverence for the Constitution, in ye olden days they were justifying why Obama had to do X Y Z with his "pen and his phone" because Republicans wouldn't work him. Democrats control the actual machinery of the state at the personnel level. it's why "Dear Colleague letters" never got a hyperventilating reaction when Democrat administrations use them. Because all the dems on power agree with them. Your rule is one I've advocated for quite often , but don't pretend this attitude started with Trump. Trump is a reaction, an escalation. Gee, I wonder where he learned things like using the law to go after his opponents? A real mystery. And now we are here, because one side refused to give up their monopoly on the way government works and the other side stopped caring. I have far more contempt for the people who had the power and refused to let democracy take it from them. There is only one thing that will change where we are. A crisis of some sort, when everything hangs in the balance and compromises must be made. More and more I think it has to get worse before it gets better. Congress will have to be where things change, but they won't do it willingly. When did I do this? But also lets not keep with the false equivalence. I'm going to use golf as an analogy because people lose their perspective when we talk about policy. Trump often complained about Obamas golfing how he shouldn't have time and the cost. Now Trump golfs 25x as often, and he does at his own courses and the staff stay at his hotels, so he is massively profiting personally from Tax payer dollars. So well it is technically true that both Obama and Trump golfed during their presidency, the frequency, personal benefits and costs to the american people are not at all equal. The same is true with how Trump is running his presidency, and I guess you like that. But will you like it when president AOC stacks the supreme court and does whatever she damn well pleases completely ignoring what little rules, checks and balances your system apparently has? Because the door is now open. What I'm asking is that all Americans no matter what team you were born on and have supported no matter how stupid or awful they are, start thinking, hmmm do I want the other side to be able to do this? All of you really need to take a stern look at the rules and concentrate on making them actually sensible and fair. If you think the other side can't have their own maniac populist who ignores all the norms and fucks up your democracy and country you are very naïve. Do you really want to bet your democracy on "your" side winning? And when that has happened in countries has that ever worked out well for the people? Left or right? That sentence was not directed at you explicitly, although you do go on to match it. You are being far too narrow and ignoring how we got here. In progressive land, we have a sudden reverence for constitutional norms or aversion to executive power that they've been living by. But of course this isn't true. First, recall what I said about the actual machinery of the state. Dems are just fine with a powerful coercive government, because most of the time they either control all of it or at least part of it. Who do you think argued for an expansive view of the civil rights laws this administration is now using to go after places like Harvard? Or my favorite example: DACA. I remember arguing multiple times over the years about DACA with people here who insisted that it was ok and even good! because it was A) the "right thing to do" and B) that since Republicans wouldn't work with Obama on giving them citizenship, that it was ok for him to implement that program. I don't want to hear a single word about the Constitution or abusing norms from people who gave Obama a pass on DACA, who thought Biden trying to wipe out hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt with his pen was ok, or the people who cheered when a local NYC prosecutor went after Trump for paperwork that he claimed would change the election when it was impossible for it to have done so. Or when a president exercises the other great power he has: to not enforce the law. Like Biden did with the border for years. Now, Trump comes in to undo the first lawless action and once again everyone lights their hair in fire. Just like with the Dobbs decision, what most Democrats mean by "Democracy" and "norms" is "we win" and facism is just when they lose. The different agencies of the federal government should have considered what they were doing when they try to impede Republican presidents from lawfully implementing their agendas. The thing is, slippery slopes are...slippery. Trump wins a nailbiter in 2016 and so many people are spun up into hysterics. How was that for the national temperature? Biden is elected by a similarly slim electoral college win and everyone, including Biden himself, thinks he was elected to re-make the world in his image. How did that work out? I agree with you, we should all abide by the maxim that we should never take more power than we would give our enemies. Problem is, Democrats don't actually believe their enemies should ever be allowed to have power. And thus we are here. If one side wins by the rules but doesn't get to govern within them, then maybe next time they win they'll just ignore them all together? Sorry, I don't take this argument sincerely when it's only applied to Trump, when the same people yelping now spent the last 15 years arguing that the Constitution was a hopelessly flawed document tainted from the beginning by evil and thus should be given as little reference or reverence as possible. Again, I have far more disdain for the people who thought that the power was theirs by right of being right. But unfortunately, the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.
This is a valid, but also heavily biased argument. It is within the core Republican doctrine to argue that it is not the gun that kills, it is the shooter.
You're arguing in this post that we shouldn't give people metaphorical guns? Well, we agree then. But Republicans don't. They think it's the metaphorical shooter who kills, not the metaphorical gun, and the metaphorical gun should be freely available. Republicans want ultimate power and the ultimate right to wield it, and they never get the idea perhaps losing their metaphorical guns would be the solution to many of the problems in America. They're significantly more committed to holding on to absurd levels of power than Democrats are. I don't know why you're painting this as a Democrat problem.
|
On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom.
Should they now? Who would have thought...
On September 05 2025 16:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2025 11:40 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2025 04:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 04 2025 13:40 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom. This idea is funny because the saying I've quoted before is still true, "Republicans act like they will never have power and Democrats act like they will never lose it." I remember in younger days Dems didn't pretend to have so much reverence for the Constitution, in ye olden days they were justifying why Obama had to do X Y Z with his "pen and his phone" because Republicans wouldn't work him. Democrats control the actual machinery of the state at the personnel level. it's why "Dear Colleague letters" never got a hyperventilating reaction when Democrat administrations use them. Because all the dems on power agree with them. Your rule is one I've advocated for quite often , but don't pretend this attitude started with Trump. Trump is a reaction, an escalation. Gee, I wonder where he learned things like using the law to go after his opponents? A real mystery. And now we are here, because one side refused to give up their monopoly on the way government works and the other side stopped caring. I have far more contempt for the people who had the power and refused to let democracy take it from them. There is only one thing that will change where we are. A crisis of some sort, when everything hangs in the balance and compromises must be made. More and more I think it has to get worse before it gets better. Congress will have to be where things change, but they won't do it willingly. When did I do this? But also lets not keep with the false equivalence. I'm going to use golf as an analogy because people lose their perspective when we talk about policy. Trump often complained about Obamas golfing how he shouldn't have time and the cost. Now Trump golfs 25x as often, and he does at his own courses and the staff stay at his hotels, so he is massively profiting personally from Tax payer dollars. So well it is technically true that both Obama and Trump golfed during their presidency, the frequency, personal benefits and costs to the american people are not at all equal. The same is true with how Trump is running his presidency, and I guess you like that. But will you like it when president AOC stacks the supreme court and does whatever she damn well pleases completely ignoring what little rules, checks and balances your system apparently has? Because the door is now open. What I'm asking is that all Americans no matter what team you were born on and have supported no matter how stupid or awful they are, start thinking, hmmm do I want the other side to be able to do this? All of you really need to take a stern look at the rules and concentrate on making them actually sensible and fair. If you think the other side can't have their own maniac populist who ignores all the norms and fucks up your democracy and country you are very naïve. Do you really want to bet your democracy on "your" side winning? And when that has happened in countries has that ever worked out well for the people? Left or right? That sentence was not directed at you explicitly, although you do go on to match it. You are being far too narrow and ignoring how we got here. In progressive land, we have a sudden reverence for constitutional norms or aversion to executive power that they've been living by. But of course this isn't true. First, recall what I said about the actual machinery of the state. Dems are just fine with a powerful coercive government, because most of the time they either control all of it or at least part of it. Who do you think argued for an expansive view of the civil rights laws this administration is now using to go after places like Harvard? Or my favorite example: DACA. I remember arguing multiple times over the years about DACA with people here who insisted that it was ok and even good! because it was A) the "right thing to do" and B) that since Republicans wouldn't work with Obama on giving them citizenship, that it was ok for him to implement that program. I don't want to hear a single word about the Constitution or abusing norms from people who gave Obama a pass on DACA, who thought Biden trying to wipe out hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt with his pen was ok, or the people who cheered when a local NYC prosecutor went after Trump for paperwork that he claimed would change the election when it was impossible for it to have done so. Or when a president exercises the other great power he has: to not enforce the law. Like Biden did with the border for years. Now, Trump comes in to undo the first lawless action and once again everyone lights their hair in fire. Just like with the Dobbs decision, what most Democrats mean by "Democracy" and "norms" is "we win" and facism is just when they lose. The different agencies of the federal government should have considered what they were doing when they try to impede Republican presidents from lawfully implementing their agendas. The thing is, slippery slopes are...slippery. Trump wins a nailbiter in 2016 and so many people are spun up into hysterics. How was that for the national temperature? Biden is elected by a similarly slim electoral college win and everyone, including Biden himself, thinks he was elected to re-make the world in his image. How did that work out? I agree with you, we should all abide by the maxim that we should never take more power than we would give our enemies. Problem is, Democrats don't actually believe their enemies should ever be allowed to have power. And thus we are here. If one side wins by the rules but doesn't get to govern within them, then maybe next time they win they'll just ignore them all together? Sorry, I don't take this argument sincerely when it's only applied to Trump, when the same people yelping now spent the last 15 years arguing that the Constitution was a hopelessly flawed document tainted from the beginning by evil and thus should be given as little reference or reverence as possible. Again, I have far more disdain for the people who thought that the power was theirs by right of being right. But unfortunately, the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. This is a valid, but also heavily biased argument. It is within the core Republican doctrine to argue that it is not the gun that kills, it is the shooter. You're arguing in this post that we shouldn't give people metaphorical guns? Well, we agree then. But Republicans don't. They think it's the metaphorical shooter who kills, not the metaphorical gun, and the metaphorical gun should be freely available. Republicans want ultimate power and the ultimate right to wield it, and they never get the idea perhaps losing their metaphorical guns would be the solution to many of the problems in America. They're significantly more committed to holding on to absurd levels of power than Democrats are. I don't know why you're painting this as a Democrat problem.
Dude, you literally said this is biased, and then went on to say republicans bad... (with random gun insertion)
|
Trump to rename Pentagon, restoring historic ‘Department of War’ in latest military move@FOX
FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Friday to alter the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, reverting to the agency’s former namesake, Fox News Digital has learned.
Both Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have recently indicated they want to change the name of the agency. It is one of several initiatives the Trump administration has spearheaded as part of its "warrior ethos" campaign within the Pentagon.
A White House official confirmed to Fox News Digital Thursday that Trump would roll out the name change Friday. The executive order calls for using the Department of War as a secondary title for the Department of Defense, along with phrases like "secretary of war" for Hegseth, according to a White House fact sheet.
The order also instructs Hegseth to propose both legislative and executive actions to make the name permanently U.S. Department of War.
ikewise, implementing the order will require modifications to public-facing websites and office signage at the Pentagon, including renaming the public affairs briefing room the "Pentagon War Annex," according to a White House official. Other longer-term projects also are in the works, the official said.
Trump signaled in recent days the change was imminent.
"Everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was Department of War," Trump told reporters Aug. 25. "Then we changed it to Department of Defense."
they just find ways of upping the stupid, no serious thought or effort needed. maybe, just maybe it's not such a good idea...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 05 2025 18:27 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom. Should they now? Who would have thought... Show nested quote +On September 05 2025 16:00 Magic Powers wrote:On September 05 2025 11:40 Introvert wrote:On September 05 2025 04:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 04 2025 13:40 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom. This idea is funny because the saying I've quoted before is still true, "Republicans act like they will never have power and Democrats act like they will never lose it." I remember in younger days Dems didn't pretend to have so much reverence for the Constitution, in ye olden days they were justifying why Obama had to do X Y Z with his "pen and his phone" because Republicans wouldn't work him. Democrats control the actual machinery of the state at the personnel level. it's why "Dear Colleague letters" never got a hyperventilating reaction when Democrat administrations use them. Because all the dems on power agree with them. Your rule is one I've advocated for quite often , but don't pretend this attitude started with Trump. Trump is a reaction, an escalation. Gee, I wonder where he learned things like using the law to go after his opponents? A real mystery. And now we are here, because one side refused to give up their monopoly on the way government works and the other side stopped caring. I have far more contempt for the people who had the power and refused to let democracy take it from them. There is only one thing that will change where we are. A crisis of some sort, when everything hangs in the balance and compromises must be made. More and more I think it has to get worse before it gets better. Congress will have to be where things change, but they won't do it willingly. When did I do this? But also lets not keep with the false equivalence. I'm going to use golf as an analogy because people lose their perspective when we talk about policy. Trump often complained about Obamas golfing how he shouldn't have time and the cost. Now Trump golfs 25x as often, and he does at his own courses and the staff stay at his hotels, so he is massively profiting personally from Tax payer dollars. So well it is technically true that both Obama and Trump golfed during their presidency, the frequency, personal benefits and costs to the american people are not at all equal. The same is true with how Trump is running his presidency, and I guess you like that. But will you like it when president AOC stacks the supreme court and does whatever she damn well pleases completely ignoring what little rules, checks and balances your system apparently has? Because the door is now open. What I'm asking is that all Americans no matter what team you were born on and have supported no matter how stupid or awful they are, start thinking, hmmm do I want the other side to be able to do this? All of you really need to take a stern look at the rules and concentrate on making them actually sensible and fair. If you think the other side can't have their own maniac populist who ignores all the norms and fucks up your democracy and country you are very naïve. Do you really want to bet your democracy on "your" side winning? And when that has happened in countries has that ever worked out well for the people? Left or right? That sentence was not directed at you explicitly, although you do go on to match it. You are being far too narrow and ignoring how we got here. In progressive land, we have a sudden reverence for constitutional norms or aversion to executive power that they've been living by. But of course this isn't true. First, recall what I said about the actual machinery of the state. Dems are just fine with a powerful coercive government, because most of the time they either control all of it or at least part of it. Who do you think argued for an expansive view of the civil rights laws this administration is now using to go after places like Harvard? Or my favorite example: DACA. I remember arguing multiple times over the years about DACA with people here who insisted that it was ok and even good! because it was A) the "right thing to do" and B) that since Republicans wouldn't work with Obama on giving them citizenship, that it was ok for him to implement that program. I don't want to hear a single word about the Constitution or abusing norms from people who gave Obama a pass on DACA, who thought Biden trying to wipe out hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt with his pen was ok, or the people who cheered when a local NYC prosecutor went after Trump for paperwork that he claimed would change the election when it was impossible for it to have done so. Or when a president exercises the other great power he has: to not enforce the law. Like Biden did with the border for years. Now, Trump comes in to undo the first lawless action and once again everyone lights their hair in fire. Just like with the Dobbs decision, what most Democrats mean by "Democracy" and "norms" is "we win" and facism is just when they lose. The different agencies of the federal government should have considered what they were doing when they try to impede Republican presidents from lawfully implementing their agendas. The thing is, slippery slopes are...slippery. Trump wins a nailbiter in 2016 and so many people are spun up into hysterics. How was that for the national temperature? Biden is elected by a similarly slim electoral college win and everyone, including Biden himself, thinks he was elected to re-make the world in his image. How did that work out? I agree with you, we should all abide by the maxim that we should never take more power than we would give our enemies. Problem is, Democrats don't actually believe their enemies should ever be allowed to have power. And thus we are here. If one side wins by the rules but doesn't get to govern within them, then maybe next time they win they'll just ignore them all together? Sorry, I don't take this argument sincerely when it's only applied to Trump, when the same people yelping now spent the last 15 years arguing that the Constitution was a hopelessly flawed document tainted from the beginning by evil and thus should be given as little reference or reverence as possible. Again, I have far more disdain for the people who thought that the power was theirs by right of being right. But unfortunately, the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. This is a valid, but also heavily biased argument. It is within the core Republican doctrine to argue that it is not the gun that kills, it is the shooter. You're arguing in this post that we shouldn't give people metaphorical guns? Well, we agree then. But Republicans don't. They think it's the metaphorical shooter who kills, not the metaphorical gun, and the metaphorical gun should be freely available. Republicans want ultimate power and the ultimate right to wield it, and they never get the idea perhaps losing their metaphorical guns would be the solution to many of the problems in America. They're significantly more committed to holding on to absurd levels of power than Democrats are. I don't know why you're painting this as a Democrat problem. Dude, you literally said this is biased, and then went on to say republicans bad... (with random gun insertion)
Republicans are currently the more extreme faction, and have been for around a decade or two. There's nothing biased about saying that.
|
Glue sniffing degenerate sex pest.
President of the USA.
It's all the same really. Maybe he need even more gold in his oval office
|
The Department of Defense was, to my knowledge, named by an act of Congress. So we're going to spend untold tens of millions on a rename that'll get struck down in court. Where's DOGE, I found the government waste
|
On September 05 2025 21:35 LightSpectra wrote:
The Department of Defense was, to my knowledge, named by an act of Congress. So we're going to spend untold tens of millions on a rename that'll get struck down in court. Where's DOGE, I found the government waste
It literally says as a secondary title, with pursuing legislative action to make it the primary permanent naming convention.
They need a law to rename the whole department but not to rename Defense Briefing Room 26 to War Briefing Room 26.
These are critical steps to revamp the Defense Department to a more offensive purpose in order to achieve the goals of invading Greenland and starting a trillions of dollars regime change quagmire war over the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, which this thread assured me would happen.
|
United States43520 Posts
Weird gaslighting attempt.
|
It's another "Trump wants to...." or "Trump says...." day for the news cylce.
Nothing of substance is discussed or reported, Trump just floods the zone with shit, and the narrative-creators in media just suck it eagerly as they were a 16 year old masseusse at mar-al-lago who was hired by Ghislaine to be "extra nice".
|
United States43520 Posts
On September 05 2025 22:10 KT_Elwood wrote:
It's another "Trump wants to...." or "Trump says...." day for the news cylce.
Nothing of substance is discussed or reported, Trump just floods the zone with shit, and the narrative-creators in media just suck it eagerly as they were a 16 year old masseusse at mar-al-lago who was hired by Ghislaine to be "extra nice".
What a shameful thing to have said.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On September 05 2025 20:15 Doublemint wrote:Trump to rename Pentagon, restoring historic ‘Department of War’ in latest military move@FOX Show nested quote +FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Friday to alter the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, reverting to the agency’s former namesake, Fox News Digital has learned.
Both Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have recently indicated they want to change the name of the agency. It is one of several initiatives the Trump administration has spearheaded as part of its "warrior ethos" campaign within the Pentagon.
A White House official confirmed to Fox News Digital Thursday that Trump would roll out the name change Friday. The executive order calls for using the Department of War as a secondary title for the Department of Defense, along with phrases like "secretary of war" for Hegseth, according to a White House fact sheet.
The order also instructs Hegseth to propose both legislative and executive actions to make the name permanently U.S. Department of War.
ikewise, implementing the order will require modifications to public-facing websites and office signage at the Pentagon, including renaming the public affairs briefing room the "Pentagon War Annex," according to a White House official. Other longer-term projects also are in the works, the official said.
Trump signaled in recent days the change was imminent.
"Everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was Department of War," Trump told reporters Aug. 25. "Then we changed it to Department of Defense." they just find ways of upping the stupid, no serious thought or effort needed. maybe, just maybe it's not such a good idea... + Show Spoiler +
It’s absolutely cringe, wokeness gone mad I say! Or whatever one calls the chest-beating nationalist equivalent.
|
On September 05 2025 21:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2025 21:35 LightSpectra wrote:
The Department of Defense was, to my knowledge, named by an act of Congress. So we're going to spend untold tens of millions on a rename that'll get struck down in court. Where's DOGE, I found the government waste It literally says as a secondary title, with pursuing legislative action to make it the primary permanent naming convention. They need a law to rename the whole department but not to rename Defense Briefing Room 26 to War Briefing Room 26. These are critical steps to revamp the Defense Department to a more offensive purpose in order to achieve the goals of invading Greenland and starting a trillions of dollars regime change quagmire war over the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, which this thread assured me would happen.
What exactly are they critical steps for, then? We need to spend countless millions rebranding tons of shit from "defense" to "war" beacuse...?
|
On September 04 2025 10:47 Billyboy wrote:
People should use the rule when it comes to democracy, do I think the other side should be able to do this when they are in power, or do I think they should have to follow rule X Y Z. That alone would make US politics so much more sensible instead of this speed run to the bottom.
Agreed. Sadly, that approach - the *veil of ignorance* ( https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance ) - is only going to be enforced if our leaders want to eliminate bias and promote fairness. Unfortunately, many of our leaders don't wish to do that.
|
I think we need to distinguish between things Trump is doing that are stupid and pointless, but ultimately a president should absolutely be allowed to do, like telling the Pentagon their new unofficial name is Department of War and they should act as if that's now their proper department name. And things that he should not be allowed to do, like send the National Guard wherever he wishes like it's his own personal army, or deport people to places courts had already ruled they were not allowed to be deported to.
In the day-to-day noise, the former and the latter get the same attention, because headlines have to headline. But some of it is just stuff you disagree with, but should reasonably be expected by a clown-in-chief with a hard-on for Mussolini, and the other is stuff that you'd expect from actual Mussolini and not from the leader of a democracy, and thus should not be allowed in a democracy.
|
Technically ministry of defense is an oxymoron as it‘s also entrusted with offensive matters.
It‘s just branded that way so the population doesn‘t get the impression that their own country is the aggressor.
Parking warships at Venezuela and shooting down canoes with bags of presumably drugs isn‘t very much a defensive maneuver.
Trump might designate states as narcoterrorists and disrupt them like that or worse now.
|
On September 06 2025 00:50 Acrofales wrote:I think we need to distinguish between things Trump is doing that are stupid and pointless, but ultimately a president should absolutely be allowed to do, like telling the Pentagon their new unofficial name is Department of War and they should act as if that's now their proper department name. And things that he should not be allowed to do, like send the National Guard wherever he wishes like it's his own personal army, or deport people to places courts had already ruled they were not allowed to be deported to. + Show Spoiler +
In the day-to-day noise, the former and the latter get the same attention, because headlines have to headline. But some of it is just stuff you disagree with, but should reasonably be expected by a clown-in-chief with a hard-on for Mussolini, and the other is stuff that you'd expect from actual Mussolini and not from the leader of a democracy, and thus should not be allowed in a democracy.
Why bother?
I ask that both sardonically and sincerely.
|
On September 06 2025 00:50 Acrofales wrote:
I think we need to distinguish between things Trump is doing that are stupid and pointless, but ultimately a president should absolutely be allowed to do, like telling the Pentagon their new unofficial name is Department of War and they should act as if that's now their proper department name. And things that he should not be allowed to do, like send the National Guard wherever he wishes like it's his own personal army, or deport people to places courts had already ruled they were not allowed to be deported to.
In the day-to-day noise, the former and the latter get the same attention, because headlines have to headline. But some of it is just stuff you disagree with, but should reasonably be expected by a clown-in-chief with a hard-on for Mussolini, and the other is stuff that you'd expect from actual Mussolini and not from the leader of a democracy, and thus should not be allowed in a democracy.
I dunno about that, the fact that Trump cut research into treatments for children's cancer on the basis that the government is strapped for cash seems especially egregious when he's dropping billions on renaming departments for his ego, giving tax cuts to Elon Musk, pulling approval for wind farms that are literally already built, and sending the National Guard to pick up trash.
|
Narcoterrorist is a new spawn in this rhetoric though.
What are they gonna tell the American population ?
‚We regret to inform you that another cocaine bag has hit the white house‘
|
On September 06 2025 01:07 Vivax wrote:
Narcoterrorist is a new spawn in this rhetoric though.
What are they gonna tell the American population ?
‚We regret to inform you that another cocaine bag has hit the white house‘
Why do you think the White House is white? Those cocaine bags have covered its original red, white and blue colours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
