|
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 06 2025 00:57 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sure. And if this government weren't also trying to undermine the very pillars of democracy it'd be totally fine for the 24-hour outrage machine to be outraged about that. It's pretty bad. But it's not as bad as trying to find every way they can get away with to oppress opposition, accrue more power and control the media. The thing is that he's doing the whole magician trick of "look how awful this is" while doing even worse with the other hand. You can't fight everything. So pick your battles.
|
On September 06 2025 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Do you ask because you think you don't need to pick your battles and you should resist everything everywhere all at once? Or because you think the US is already irredeemably fucked, and even if you win one battle now, the war against fascism is lost, so why bother?
The former just doesn't seem very pragmatic. The latter seems more like a kwark position than something you actually believe.
|
United States42884 Posts
My position isn’t that the fight is over, it’s buy guns and learn how commercially available chemicals interact. In a video game.
|
On September 06 2025 03:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2025 00:56 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Do you ask because you think you don't need to pick your battles and you should resist everything everywhere all at once? Or because you think the US is already irredeemably fucked, and even if you win one battle now, the war against fascism is lost, so why bother?
More the latter (though I maintain revolutionary optimism for an AmeriMaidan) but also, what difference does it make if the solutions to both are "vote Blue no matter who if/when they let you dude!".
People know voting for Democrats isn't going to cut it, they just really don't want to confront what that means is being required of them. Ukrainians, sure. Themselves, not so much.
|
On September 06 2025 03:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2025 00:57 LightSpectra wrote: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. Sure. And if this government weren't also trying to undermine the very pillars of democracy it'd be totally fine for the 24-hour outrage machine to be outraged about that. It's pretty bad. But it's not as bad as trying to find every way they can get away with to oppress opposition, accrue more power and control the media. The thing is that he's doing the whole magician trick of "look how awful this is" while doing even worse with the other hand. You can't fight everything. So pick your battles.
Democrats have been doing "pick our battles" for ten years now. Republicans have been doing "attack, attack, attack" and they seem to be doing fine.
Can't help but notice Gavin Newsom's poll numbers are skyrocketing because he's the only one not doing the "they go low, we go high" shtick.
|
The problem is that a large subset of Republicans are a basket of deplorables, as someone aptly put it. I don't think the Democrats copying the methods of the Republicans would work. For the Republican voters the bar is very low.
|
Republicans didn't invent aggressive campaigning. Also, it looks really bad for Democrats that there's a tidal wave of corruption and incompetence and they're only honking a horn at a small percentage of it.
|
On September 06 2025 04:30 LightSpectra wrote:
Republicans didn't invent aggressive campaigning. Also, it looks really bad for Democrats that there's a tidal wave of corruption and incompetence and they're only honking a horn at a small percentage of it.
They tried that. It was dubbed TDS and was as effective as an umbrella in the middle of a typhoon.
|
On September 06 2025 10:17 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2025 04:30 LightSpectra wrote:
Republicans didn't invent aggressive campaigning. Also, it looks really bad for Democrats that there's a tidal wave of corruption and incompetence and they're only honking a horn at a small percentage of it. They tried that. It was dubbed TDS and was as effective as an umbrella in the middle of a typhoon.
It’s not the same. Democrats campaign against republicans as “opponents”. Republicans campaign against democrats as “enemies”. Democrats “sound the alarm”. Republicans call for executions. Democrats stoke outrage. Republicans stoke genuine existential fear.
They appear similar, but the fundamental frameworks are more different than they appear. Many Democrats are simply not aware of how their politically divergent extended family view them, deep down. It’s not the condescension they themselves feel. It’s similar, but much worse
|
Northern Ireland25557 Posts
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.
You’ve definitely got a point on stretching certain Constitutional limits, while now going ‘but the Constitution’ when it suits, in some case.
On the flip side the bolded is hyperbolic in the extreme. Most on the left side of ledger don’t think the Constitution is a massively flawed document and set of statutes, just an imperfect one when transmuted into 2025.
Also much of the left don’t claim to be strict Constitutionalists to begin with. Which many on the right absolutely do claim.
If those principles were actually important, the reaction to the Democrats exceeding their bounds would be a firm retrenchment to ye olde Constitution when you’re at the wheel. Rather than you know, pissing all over it at every given opportunity. Never mind informal norms.
If you’re the chasity party you can criticise the other lot for slinging their collective dicks around, provided you remain chaste. If you’re buying hookers by the truckload you rather lose both legs and the capacity to stand upon them.
|
On September 06 2025 10:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2025 10:17 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 06 2025 04:30 LightSpectra wrote:
Republicans didn't invent aggressive campaigning. Also, it looks really bad for Democrats that there's a tidal wave of corruption and incompetence and they're only honking a horn at a small percentage of it. They tried that. It was dubbed TDS and was as effective as an umbrella in the middle of a typhoon. It’s not the same. Democrats campaign against republicans as “opponents”. Republicans campaign against democrats as “enemies”. Democrats “sound the alarm”. Republicans call for executions. Democrats stoke outrage. Republicans stoke genuine existential fear. They appear similar, but the fundamental frameworks are more different than they appear. Many Democrats are simply not aware of how their politically divergent extended family view them, deep down. It’s not the condescension they themselves feel. It’s similar, but much worse
That is so well explained, I'll be using that in the future.
|
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.
I guess I wasn't clear, I thought I was, I don't think the Dems never did this. What is new with Trump is the magnitude, frequency and so on. Did any president before Trump have this many court challenges, and losing them by his own parties judges, in this short of time? Of course not. Trump is trying to blow wide open the loop holes that other presidents snuck a couple things past.
You are never going to return, and really you shouldn't want to. You need to close the loop holes for everyone. Because well you feel really cool at sticking it to the libs right now, it is not going to feel great when it comes back. Progressive's are going to get their own populist version of Trump. And at some point during the back and forth the president is going to have all the power and then you will be fucked. And it won't much matter which team wins, because all the people lose in dictatorships 100% of the time, no matter their branding.
|
United States24699 Posts
I got a good deal on frozen shrimp today because of morally bankrupt things like this:
![[image loading]](https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7/9/79475044-db10-4552-b3cf-73361e967c9f/ED4E20102A2B9581118E244711AF468D0614FB1F35FD6FEB450F05A4BA5F6D7F.screenshot-2025-09-04-at-9.30.33-am.png)
Senator Kennedy claimed to take issue with a recent news item where frozen shrimp originating from Indonesia became contaminated due to an accident involving the spread of cesium-137, a radioactive isotope, requiring a recall of shrimp being sold in many states in the USA. While the FDA's reaction was probably a bit overzealous (recalling food that was not above limits), it's not an unreasonable thing to be concerned about. If the levels were higher than expected, they could theoretically have health consequences.
So what does Senator Kennedy do? Read this Senate article or see this video for why he's showing a picture of an alien from the movie Alien in the Senate. At first I thought he was just being incredibly stupid, but no. Skip to near the end and you see he's plugging shrimp harvested from his State and the safer alternative. Ah, so lying through his teeth about basic facts in order to boost industry in his State while raising prices for consumers. This would be a bigger deal if we didn't have such a corrupt businessman in the White House, making this event fairly tame by comparison. I just hate how it does damage to the nuclear industry for such selfish and stupid reasons, spreading fear and superstition about nuclear materials.
|
United States42884 Posts
That’s all well and good Micronesia but how do you make your money. Pretty sure you’re on the payroll of big atoms. And when I google the biggest atoms what comes up? Cesium. Might that be the same cesium that they’re putting in the shrimp? Follow the money people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
