|
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 17 2025 07:55 Billyboy wrote:
The most fucked up thing about this is American's reaction to celebrity's getting shot compared to even a bunch of school children or all the other mass shootings that barely make a dent in the news these days.
Also, to everyone who thinks he couldn't possibly be a fan and shoot Kirk (it is looking like he's not) you are dead wrong. When it comes to celebrity shooting it is common for the person to be a super fan. John Lennon's killer was the president of his fan club and more recently the singer Christina Grimmie was killed by a super fan who was in love with her. People don't only kill people they hate, especially when celebrity is involved.
A consistent mistake people make is that they think their own rationale is the same as that of other people. And another mistake is the assumption that people must be rational to begin with.
Irrationality and inconsistency often explains people's actions much better.
Most importantly though, we still don't know the motive for the assassination. People are jumping to conclusions because they can't help themselves. Literally no patience whatsoever. ADHD nation.
|
On September 17 2025 09:50 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people think "Civil War", are they basically imagining the far-right going to war to keep the West Coast in the Union, rural vs urban wars around the country, North vs South, or what?
I don't know that enough of the US populace gives enough of a shit for an actual civil war.
I imagine more of a general "balkanization" with some conflicts internally (from oppressed groups) and between regions over resources and such. See you dont have single culture any more (like western/US culture) you have liberal culture and conservative culture and 2 cultures cant coexist within the same borders. One have to take over.
Hard disagree. Contradictory values have existed side by side in many countries for many generations. One of the key components of civility is tolerance of contradictory values.
We don't have peace because people are doing Kumbaya all day. We have peace because people actively choose not to enact violence on their ideological or personal enemies. That kind of restraint must be practiced in any community/civilization.
Peace is simply a consequence of restraint.
But that also requires that nobody does any evil things. Saying evil things is one thing, but acting on them is different. That's when violent conflict can happen.
I didn't call Trump a fascist as long as he was just being racist. But then he started being a fascist and I started calling him a fascist. I don't call him a fascist because of his views, but because of his actions. His views can co-exist with my views without violence. But his actions cannot.
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c04qenww53pt
The messages between Robinson and his partner are out.
She had no idea he was about to do it, no one did and all he has said to anyone about his motivations is that CK was "spreading hate".
There is no proof, from interviews with his parents and friends or his discord logs that this guy was a radical anything.
He seemed like someone who got desensitized to violence and who thought they could get away with it, he was planning his escape and trying to retrieve and hide his gun. He also wanted to kill himself but got talked out of it and talked into turning himself in after his parents recognized him on the TV.
He also said the casings were all a "big meme", so yeah, absolutely no proof of any radical anything agenda, just a weird guy who snapped and did something crazy, very similar to Luigi.
And, just like right wingers are still touting Luigi as evidence that "the left" is radical and violent, despite large segments of the right also reacting in a very similar way to the CEO assassination, they will cherry pick things about Robinson and make him a left wing terrorist.
He wasn't, neither was Luigi, Luigi was a libertarian with a lot of beliefs across the spectrum, this guy seems like someone who got raised very conservative, loved guns and fell in love with someone which opened his eyes to the type of abuse these people get from the likes of Charlie Kirk, which then he turned into an act of violence.
|
On September 17 2025 17:15 Jankisa wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c04qenww53ptThe messages between Robinson and his partner are out. She had no idea he was about to do it, no one did and all he has said to anyone about his motivations is that CK was "spreading hate". There is no proof, from interviews with his parents and friends or his discord logs that this guy was a radical anything. He seemed like someone who got desensitized to violence and who thought they could get away with it, he was planning his escape and trying to retrieve and hide his gun. He also wanted to kill himself but got talked out of it and talked into turning himself in after his parents recognized him on the TV. He also said the casings were all a "big meme", so yeah, absolutely no proof of any radical anything agenda, just a weird guy who snapped and did something crazy, very similar to Luigi. And, just like right wingers are still touting Luigi as evidence that "the left" is radical and violent, despite large segments of the right also reacting in a very similar way to the CEO assassination, they will cherry pick things about Robinson and make him a left wing terrorist. He wasn't, neither was Luigi, Luigi was a libertarian with a lot of beliefs across the spectrum, this guy seems like someone who got raised very conservative, loved guns and fell in love with someone which opened his eyes to the type of abuse these people get from the likes of Charlie Kirk, which then he turned into an act of violence.
Assuming those texts are real, I wouldn't say the assassination was apolitical. Because it wasn't purely personal either, as there was no connection between Kirk and Tyler Robinson.
We could say TR made something political out of a personal situation. It was a political statement and not just a random murder.
Again, that's assuming the texts are real. I'll wait until there's definitive confirmation.
|
On September 17 2025 01:16 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 00:35 castleeMg wrote:On September 17 2025 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 16 2025 23:58 castleeMg wrote:This whole weird argument that he was right wing but shot one of his own is absurd. Weren't both of Trumps assassination attempts conducted by right wing people? The notion that a right wing person will not attempt to kill right wing political figure is objectively false. The guy had a trans roommate who admitted to being his partner and that they were in a secret romantic relationship. Apparently the roommate has been pretty cooperative with authorities, but how many people in relationships with trans people are right wing? It seems like there is information that he came from a very conservative Mormon family but his views did not align with theirs over the past few years. Also Thomas Crooks political affiliation was not definitively known, he donated to a left wing group in 2021 and voted republican only once in a primary in 2022. Other than that his political activity seems pretty neutral. Why are you falsely painting him as some sort of right wing guy? Also did you forget about Ryan Routh? That nutjob democrat that tried to kill Trump on a golf course? I guess you conveniently forgot about that. The fact that you guys are trying to say he was right wing but he killed Kirk because he didn’t like that he supported Israel is fucking insane. So the guy threw his whole life away and killed Kirk because of a few stand points that he didn’t agree with Kirk on? But overall he was right wing because he has photo of him dressed as a groyper in 2018? Hilarious mental gymnastics The most likely scenario about Kirk shooter is, just like those 2, that it was someone who got radicalized online and lost their mind in the process, maybe they had a room mate or a partner who was Trans, maybe they weren't, maybe this was a trigger for them to do this, maybe it wasn't, until more info comes out, we won't know.
On September 17 2025 17:15 Jankisa wrote:
There is no proof, from interviews with his parents and friends or his discord logs that this guy was a radical anything.
He seemed like someone who got desensitized to violence and who thought they could get away with it, he was planning his escape and trying to retrieve and hide his gun. He also wanted to kill himself but got talked out of it and talked into turning himself in after his parents recognized him on the TV.
He also said the casings were all a "big meme", so yeah, absolutely no proof of any radical anything agenda, just a weird guy who snapped and did something crazy, very similar to Luigi.
Strong intraday jumps here. What exactly is your definition of a radical?
|
I would call someone who planned to kill someone else radicalized, whatever their motivation was. You don't just start making plans to murder someone else. You need a spark, you need to be motivated to do so. There's a big step between: this person shouldn't speak and that means I will (try to) shut him up forever.
For some it'll be a smaller step to make (easier to radicalize), for some it'll be a bigger step.
Terminally online nihilism can absolutely be a new wave of radicalized teens. Killing people for the memes is like such a level dissociated from social cohesion that it's difficult, to me at least, to posit that he wasn't radicalized.
|
On September 17 2025 14:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 10:33 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 10:23 Vivax wrote:On September 17 2025 09:50 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people think "Civil War", are they basically imagining the far-right going to war to keep the West Coast in the Union, rural vs urban wars around the country, North vs South, or what?
I don't know that enough of the US populace gives enough of a shit for an actual civil war.
I imagine more of a general "balkanization" with some conflicts internally (from oppressed groups) and between regions over resources and such. See you dont have single culture any more (like western/US culture) you have liberal culture and conservative culture and 2 cultures cant coexist within the same borders. One have to take over. No nation has a single culture except maybe China and other Asian nations. Western culture doesn‘t even exist. It‘s too fractured for that. Which is why you can have different experiences in Italy, the UK, France, US etc. In terms of anthropology, when it has its own language, it‘s something of their own. The point is for them to be able to coexist because it‘d be pretty boring if we only had one. Of course they do. There is French culture, British culture, US culture. They are all different with different traditions, history even effing food. If you think different cultures can coexist within the same borders, then you are mistaken. Ask native Americans, ask St Bartholomew/ du Plessis how did that work out in France, check what papist is, or what happened in Granada. This looks like a post by someone who has never been to France. Or Britain, despite supposedly living there. Despite the French monarchy's best efforts to unite French regions with a single language, centralise everything in Paris, and multiple religious genocides, there's still a significant difference between regions. The British government was never as zealous in its fervour to create homogeneity, and that's why the Welsh still speak Welsh, and the Scottish Scottish. Two different Gaelic languages that have nothing at all to do with English. The Scots wear the fact that they aren't English as a badge of pride. Even within England, the north and the south have large differences and a language such that if they each speak their own dialect they can barely understand each other. The linguistic difference between York and Portsmouth is probably larger than between any two US states.
Re France: Yes there are differences between regions, yet this are variances within the same culture. Picardian may be Picardian but he is also still French. The way it works is that may maintain certain traditions, but certain values are non negotiable. That why Henry de Navarre could become king but... "Paris is well worth a Mass"
Re Britain: Really thats your example? So we have island with (for simplification) 3 kingdoms, which united. It just so happens that main legislative body is in Westminster and decides what other 2 can decide by themselves. During Brexit referendum Scotland voted to remain, how did that work out? Thats the subdue part. See English were vey good at this sort of thing, thats why they were empire. It is much cheaper to allow certain traditions to remain intact, and just draw the lines which you are not allowed to cross. Whats within this lines, over time, will define culture.
On September 17 2025 16:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 09:50 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people think "Civil War", are they basically imagining the far-right going to war to keep the West Coast in the Union, rural vs urban wars around the country, North vs South, or what?
I don't know that enough of the US populace gives enough of a shit for an actual civil war.
I imagine more of a general "balkanization" with some conflicts internally (from oppressed groups) and between regions over resources and such. See you dont have single culture any more (like western/US culture) you have liberal culture and conservative culture and 2 cultures cant coexist within the same borders. One have to take over. Hard disagree. Contradictory values have existed side by side in many countries for many generations. One of the key components of civility is tolerance of contradictory values.
It is not about contradictory values, it is about shared values. What are the values shared between US conservatives and US liberals? Please dont say flag, or love for the country, because it is simply not true. You may be able to make argument for constitution, but even there is disagreement like for example 2nd amendment (year ago I would mention 1st too, but it seems since Trump became president liberals see the light)
|
On September 17 2025 18:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 16:59 Magic Powers wrote:On September 17 2025 09:50 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people think "Civil War", are they basically imagining the far-right going to war to keep the West Coast in the Union, rural vs urban wars around the country, North vs South, or what?
I don't know that enough of the US populace gives enough of a shit for an actual civil war.
I imagine more of a general "balkanization" with some conflicts internally (from oppressed groups) and between regions over resources and such. See you dont have single culture any more (like western/US culture) you have liberal culture and conservative culture and 2 cultures cant coexist within the same borders. One have to take over. Hard disagree. Contradictory values have existed side by side in many countries for many generations. One of the key components of civility is tolerance of contradictory values. It is not about contradictory values, it is about shared values. What are the values shared between US conservatives and US liberals? Please dont say flag, or love for the country, because it is simply not true. You may be able to make argument for constitution, but even there is disagreement like for example 2nd amendment (year ago I would mention 1st too, but it seems since Trump became president liberals see the light)
I don't understand what this means. Liberals see the light about what? Plenty of Republican leaders are anti- 1st Amendment, including those who push for this country to be a Christian theocracy instead of having freedom of religion. Furthermore, Trump's/MAGA's pro-fascism vision would ideally prevent other people from having freedoms of speech and expression to voice their dissenting opinions against the current administration. Are you saying that both sides have "shared values" for or against the 1st Amendment? I don't see 1A being a "shared value" for these two parties, since Republicans don't appear to value 1A.
|
On September 17 2025 18:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 14:14 Acrofales wrote:On September 17 2025 10:33 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 10:23 Vivax wrote:On September 17 2025 09:50 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people think "Civil War", are they basically imagining the far-right going to war to keep the West Coast in the Union, rural vs urban wars around the country, North vs South, or what?
I don't know that enough of the US populace gives enough of a shit for an actual civil war.
I imagine more of a general "balkanization" with some conflicts internally (from oppressed groups) and between regions over resources and such. See you dont have single culture any more (like western/US culture) you have liberal culture and conservative culture and 2 cultures cant coexist within the same borders. One have to take over. No nation has a single culture except maybe China and other Asian nations. Western culture doesn‘t even exist. It‘s too fractured for that. Which is why you can have different experiences in Italy, the UK, France, US etc. In terms of anthropology, when it has its own language, it‘s something of their own. The point is for them to be able to coexist because it‘d be pretty boring if we only had one. Of course they do. There is French culture, British culture, US culture. They are all different with different traditions, history even effing food. If you think different cultures can coexist within the same borders, then you are mistaken. Ask native Americans, ask St Bartholomew/ du Plessis how did that work out in France, check what papist is, or what happened in Granada. This looks like a post by someone who has never been to France. Or Britain, despite supposedly living there. Despite the French monarchy's best efforts to unite French regions with a single language, centralise everything in Paris, and multiple religious genocides, there's still a significant difference between regions. The British government was never as zealous in its fervour to create homogeneity, and that's why the Welsh still speak Welsh, and the Scottish Scottish. Two different Gaelic languages that have nothing at all to do with English. The Scots wear the fact that they aren't English as a badge of pride. Even within England, the north and the south have large differences and a language such that if they each speak their own dialect they can barely understand each other. The linguistic difference between York and Portsmouth is probably larger than between any two US states. Re France: Yes there are differences between regions, yet this are variances within the same culture. Picardian may be Picardian but he is also still French. The way it works is that may maintain certain traditions, but certain values are non negotiable. That why Henry de Navarre could become king but... "Paris is well worth a Mass" Re Britain: Really thats your example? So we have island with (for simplification) 3 kingdoms, which united. It just so happens that main legislative body is in Westminster and decides what other 2 can decide by themselves. During Brexit referendum Scotland voted to remain, how did that work out? Thats the subdue part. See English were vey good at this sort of thing, thats why they were empire. It is much cheaper to allow certain traditions to remain intact, and just draw the lines which you are not allowed to cross. Whats within this lines, over time, will define culture.
Scotland voted to remain within the UK during the Scottish independence referendum. Remaining in the UK entailed foreign policy being dictated by Westminster. Brexit definitely falls within the realm of foreign policy.
You should've stopped posting about the UK after your Guy Fawkes' Night blunder.
EDIT:
British culture is so resolutely incapable of adopting or coexisting with other cultures that our national dish is a curry...
|
On September 17 2025 18:16 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 14:14 Acrofales wrote:On September 17 2025 10:33 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 10:23 Vivax wrote:On September 17 2025 09:50 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people think "Civil War", are they basically imagining the far-right going to war to keep the West Coast in the Union, rural vs urban wars around the country, North vs South, or what?
I don't know that enough of the US populace gives enough of a shit for an actual civil war.
I imagine more of a general "balkanization" with some conflicts internally (from oppressed groups) and between regions over resources and such. See you dont have single culture any more (like western/US culture) you have liberal culture and conservative culture and 2 cultures cant coexist within the same borders. One have to take over. No nation has a single culture except maybe China and other Asian nations. Western culture doesn‘t even exist. It‘s too fractured for that. Which is why you can have different experiences in Italy, the UK, France, US etc. In terms of anthropology, when it has its own language, it‘s something of their own. The point is for them to be able to coexist because it‘d be pretty boring if we only had one. Of course they do. There is French culture, British culture, US culture. They are all different with different traditions, history even effing food. If you think different cultures can coexist within the same borders, then you are mistaken. Ask native Americans, ask St Bartholomew/ du Plessis how did that work out in France, check what papist is, or what happened in Granada. This looks like a post by someone who has never been to France. Or Britain, despite supposedly living there. Despite the French monarchy's best efforts to unite French regions with a single language, centralise everything in Paris, and multiple religious genocides, there's still a significant difference between regions. The British government was never as zealous in its fervour to create homogeneity, and that's why the Welsh still speak Welsh, and the Scottish Scottish. Two different Gaelic languages that have nothing at all to do with English. The Scots wear the fact that they aren't English as a badge of pride. Even within England, the north and the south have large differences and a language such that if they each speak their own dialect they can barely understand each other. The linguistic difference between York and Portsmouth is probably larger than between any two US states. Re France: Yes there are differences between regions, yet this are variances within the same culture. Picardian may be Picardian but he is also still French. The way it works is that may maintain certain traditions, but certain values are non negotiable. That why Henry de Navarre could become king but... "Paris is well worth a Mass" Re Britain: Really thats your example? So we have island with (for simplification) 3 kingdoms, which united. It just so happens that main legislative body is in Westminster and decides what other 2 can decide by themselves. During Brexit referendum Scotland voted to remain, how did that work out? Thats the subdue part. See English were vey good at this sort of thing, thats why they were empire. It is much cheaper to allow certain traditions to remain intact, and just draw the lines which you are not allowed to cross. Whats within this lines, over time, will define culture. Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 16:59 Magic Powers wrote:On September 17 2025 09:50 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people think "Civil War", are they basically imagining the far-right going to war to keep the West Coast in the Union, rural vs urban wars around the country, North vs South, or what?
I don't know that enough of the US populace gives enough of a shit for an actual civil war.
I imagine more of a general "balkanization" with some conflicts internally (from oppressed groups) and between regions over resources and such. See you dont have single culture any more (like western/US culture) you have liberal culture and conservative culture and 2 cultures cant coexist within the same borders. One have to take over. Hard disagree. Contradictory values have existed side by side in many countries for many generations. One of the key components of civility is tolerance of contradictory values. It is not about contradictory values, it is about shared values. What are the values shared between US conservatives and US liberals? Please dont say flag, or love for the country, because it is simply not true. You may be able to make argument for constitution, but even there is disagreement like for example 2nd amendment (year ago I would mention 1st too, but it seems since Trump became president liberals see the light)
Conservatism and progressivism (not liberalism) are opposed to one another. There is no sharing of values going on.
Liberalism is not the opposite of conservatism. Liberals and conservatives share a few values. Progressives and conservatives do not.
|
On September 17 2025 18:28 MJG wrote:
dictated by Westminster.
Thank you.
On September 17 2025 18:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 18:16 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 16:59 Magic Powers wrote:On September 17 2025 09:50 Razyda wrote:On September 17 2025 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people think "Civil War", are they basically imagining the far-right going to war to keep the West Coast in the Union, rural vs urban wars around the country, North vs South, or what?
I don't know that enough of the US populace gives enough of a shit for an actual civil war.
I imagine more of a general "balkanization" with some conflicts internally (from oppressed groups) and between regions over resources and such. See you dont have single culture any more (like western/US culture) you have liberal culture and conservative culture and 2 cultures cant coexist within the same borders. One have to take over. Hard disagree. Contradictory values have existed side by side in many countries for many generations. One of the key components of civility is tolerance of contradictory values. It is not about contradictory values, it is about shared values. What are the values shared between US conservatives and US liberals? Please dont say flag, or love for the country, because it is simply not true. You may be able to make argument for constitution, but even there is disagreement like for example 2nd amendment (year ago I would mention 1st too, but it seems since Trump became president liberals see the light) I don't understand what this means. Liberals see the light about what? Plenty of Republican leaders are anti- 1st Amendment, including those who push for this country to be a Christian theocracy instead of having freedom of religion. Furthermore, Trump's/MAGA's pro-fascism philosophy flies directly against freedoms of speech and expression. Are you saying that that both sides have "shared values" for or against the 1st Amendment? I don't see 1A being a "shared" focus for these two parties, since Republicans are clearly more anti-1A than Democrats are.
I think it is because you think in categories of "Republican leaders" Divide is between conservatives and liberals en masse. Calls for censoring misinformation, malformation, disinformation, hate speech arent really conservative thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
