|
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 07 2025 03:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 02:59 Shinokuki wrote:
I really don't understand how world has come to this with education and history we can refer to. I'm tired and going to not read the news at all.. Billionaires parasitically extracting all the wealth from society + them owning all the social media and most of the cable news, newspapers, and AM radio stations = people are radicalized and ready to blame literally any target except the ones responsible for their suffering Plus the death of the 'third place' leaning to a loneliness crisis, participating in racialist/queerphobic/misogynist extremist movements can be the only community that a lot of people have anymore.
We in late stage capitalism? It surely feels like we're heading to our demise around 2035ish, given climate change will be at a point where it gets exponetially worse and worse.
|
On September 07 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 00:13 micronesia wrote: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. His statement "this is a photograph of the alien from the movie ‘Alien.’ This is what you could end up looking like if you eat some of the raw frozen shrimp being sent to the U.S. by other countries" has to be in the Hall Of Fame of Dumbest Things A Person Other Than Trump Has Said.
You're forgetting that one time Senator Inhofe brought a snowball to work as proof global warming was a hoax.
|
On September 07 2025 05:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2025 00:13 micronesia wrote:I got a good deal on frozen shrimp today because of morally bankrupt things like this: 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. His statement "this is a photograph of the alien from the movie ‘Alien.’ This is what you could end up looking like if you eat some of the raw frozen shrimp being sent to the U.S. by other countries" has to be in the Hall Of Fame of Dumbest Things A Person Other Than Trump Has Said. You're forgetting that one time Senator Inhofe brought a snowball to work as proof global warming was a hoax.
Ah yes, that classic line! And then there's Representative Todd Akin's comment about how abortion shouldn't be legal or needed for rape victims, because "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
|
On September 07 2025 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 05:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2025 00:13 micronesia wrote:I got a good deal on frozen shrimp today because of morally bankrupt things like this: 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. His statement "this is a photograph of the alien from the movie ‘Alien.’ This is what you could end up looking like if you eat some of the raw frozen shrimp being sent to the U.S. by other countries" has to be in the Hall Of Fame of Dumbest Things A Person Other Than Trump Has Said. You're forgetting that one time Senator Inhofe brought a snowball to work as proof global warming was a hoax. Ah yes, that classic line! And then there's Representative Todd Akin's comment about how abortion shouldn't be legal or needed for rape victims, because "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
To be fair, that tanked his election. It was a more civilized time when a significant number of Republicans still had something resembling shame and a conscience. Akin would probably be the Secretary for Health & Human Services now if he said that in 2024 instead, and was still alive.
|
On September 07 2025 03:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2025 02:59 Shinokuki wrote:
I really don't understand how world has come to this with education and history we can refer to. I'm tired and going to not read the news at all.. Billionaires parasitically extracting all the wealth from society + them owning all the social media and most of the cable news, newspapers, and AM radio stations = people are radicalized and ready to blame literally any target except the ones responsible for their suffering Plus the death of the 'third place' leaning to a loneliness crisis, participating in racialist/queerphobic/misogynist extremist movements can be the only community that a lot of people have anymore.
Internet monopolization by US companies contributed to this.
EU fines are a meme move at this point.
Unfortunately there‘s little workaround when English is the universal language there.
|
I agree, the world's in some deep shit until some country decides to do something about the radicalizing algorithms of Meta, Google, and Twitter.
|
On September 07 2025 09:08 LightSpectra wrote:
I agree, the world's in some deep shit until some country decides to do something about the radicalizing algorithms of Meta, Google, and Twitter.
Unfortunately other countries with isolated internet systems are just as autocratic as the US is now so all you can do is pick your poison and choose between various nutjobs molded into flags.
Or simp for tech billionaires.
Or blow them up, hypothetically speaking.
Because they shit all over local laws of other countries with their tech gimmicks. And I‘d rather be defiant to that kind of megalomaniac character they represent.
It‘s a dystopian world where the best you can do is enrage them without overplaying your hand.
Speaking of which, what‘s the size of Musks current crotch goblin army he fathered with his harem ?
Doing things they‘d like to secretly do but cannot because of their position is also a surefire way to enrage them.
|
On September 06 2025 23:44 Billyboy 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. 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.
The final paragraph is exactly the thing I've been trying to tell people for years, it's part of what I as saying arguing about DACA all that time ago. I'm telling you that your warning, seemingly convenient now that it's a Republican pushing the boundaries, is falling on deaf ears because A) it's inconsistently applied, and B) there is the belief that when you win you get to govern. Is it ignoring the rules when playing Monopoly when one player has to pay double price for all properties? There is a deep imbalance within the government itself that Trump is now trying to blow up. There's a similar problem in the judiciary right now. People have to be allowed to govern when they win. Democrats don't have any problem with that, and when they get legislative pushback (i.e. immigration during Obama's term) or cheering from the media (high student loan forgiveness) they are supported in their novel uses of executive power. I'm just saying that maybe rather just looking forward with your new found insight you should apply it backwards as well and try to figure out how we got here. When that happens maybe your "hey guys maybe we should think about this" will be taken more seriously.
|
On September 07 2025 13:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2025 23:44 Billyboy 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. 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. The final paragraph is exactly the thing I've been trying to tell people for years, it's part of what I as saying arguing about DACA all that time ago. I'm telling you that your warning, seemingly convenient now that it's a Republican pushing the boundaries, is falling on deaf ears because A) it's inconsistently applied, and B) there is the belief that when you win you get to govern. Is it ignoring the rules when playing Monopoly when one player has to pay double price for all properties? There is a deep imbalance within the government itself that Trump is now trying to blow up. There's a similar problem in the judiciary right now. People have to be allowed to govern when they win. Democrats don't have any problem with that, and when they get legislative pushback (i.e. immigration during Obama's term) or cheering from the media (high student loan forgiveness) they are supported in their novel uses of executive power. I'm just saying that maybe rather just looking forward with your new found insight you should apply it backwards as well and try to figure out how we got here. When that happens maybe your "hey guys maybe we should think about this" will be taken more seriously.
You're still blaming Democrats for this. Republicans were trying to game the system harder and for longer, throughout all the years that you're pinning on Democrats. You're presenting this as a partisan issue, as if only the people supporting Democrats were blind to any dangers. Wrong. Republicans were at least equally blind, and in my opinion much more. They're also now much more responsible for the escalation of lawlessness. They have voted for Trump. Not Democrats. You're shifting the blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
