|
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 |
United States43004 Posts
On September 25 2025 19:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So my brother works at this place called Kantega, it's an IT-company with a particular policy which makes it differ from most of its competitors: owning stock is mandatory to work there, the employers own 100% of the company, and everybody owns an equal share. It is a private company - but essentially what modern day socialism within a capitalist society looks like.
Kantega has on numerous occasions been highlighted as one of the best places to work in all of Norway, they attract top talent and have very low turnover. I've basically yet to hear anything negative from any people who work there. It sure as fuck isn't plagued by employees stealing stuff. I mean,the idea that 'if workers own part of their work place, they will be incentivized to steal from their work place' is a special type of logic that I can't really grasp my head around, but oh well.
Nobody is arguing for soviet-style command economy with rampant corruption to boot. Worker ownership of the means of production has no relationship with that, and the notion that Polish people stealing from a totalitarian regime is an argument against coops is at best laughable.
Razyda has disproved your brother, he’s simply not possible. Sorry for your loss.
|
On September 25 2025 20:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2025 20:24 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2025 19:57 LightSpectra wrote:On September 25 2025 19:37 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2025 18:37 MJG wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y4de02x3woIs it a realistic possibility that the US Government is going to go into shut down, or will the Democrats fold? This seems like the kind of tactic that the Republicans have been perfectly happy to use to get their way when a Democrat has been in the White House, but that Democrats are unwilling to use when a Republican is in the White House. Democrats caused the longest shutdown ever in Trump's first term. You probably don't remember because it's the government, so nobody noticed they stopped doing nothing. Those of us who aren't as senile as the child rapist president they voted for will recall that the longest government shutdown in U.S. history began in 2018, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House, because then-unconvicted rapist Donald Trump refused to sign a budget that didn't include money for a Mexican border wall that Texas Republicans in the House didn't want and refused to vote for. The shutdown cost an estimated $11b, more than the cancer research for children funding that now-convicted rapist Trump impounded from the U.S. government in 2025. Only 34% of those polled did not blame Trump specifically for the shutdown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–2019_United_States_federal_government_shutdown Have they gotten to the filibuster in your civics class yet? The Senate needs 60 votes for cloture. If you "control" the White House and both chambers of Congress, you would be able to pass your own budgets. You can't because it's not simple majority, unless you're advocating Republicans should abolish the filibuster to govern without obstructionist nonsense. Is that what you want? "Texas Republicans in the House?" Pure fiction. The House passed a CR. It's the Senate that wouldn't pass the bill. Why? Because there were more than 40 Democrats. Weird how there's never been a government shutdown when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress 🤷♂️ Maybe it's because they know how to govern.
Really? I'll believe you. Think about what you're saying for one second.
Three entities have to agree on a budget not to have a shutdown: The President, the House, and the Senate.
While it's possible for them to be of 3 different parties, or 3 opinions/factions, for now let's say there's two.
The first way for the 3 parties not to agree is the president and one chamber, controlled by one party, disagree with the other chamber, which is controlled by another party. That seems reasonable enough and can be negotiated out.
The second way for the 3 parties not to agree is the president and both chambers are all the same party and all on the same page, but the minority party in the Senate threatens to, or actually, filibusters. That's 2018.
The essence of what you're saying is that when Republicans have been totally in the minority party, under 50 votes in the Senate, they never pulled an infantile roadblock shutting down the federal government over $7 billion in funding on their opponents' main issue, which their opponents ran and won on.
Republicans have never stooped to it. They never threw that tantrum. This is a Congress that hasn't passed a balanced budget in 25 years over which time it has accrued a debt of more than so many trillions, and spends over $5,000 billion every year, the Democrats thought $7 billion on their opponents' key, real, urgent, and popular issue was a bridge too far. You're saying only Democrats have ever done that. Interesting observation and I appreciate you bringing it up, I never heard it framed that way before, I always viewed all shutdowns as a kind of tit for tat expression of leverage. I never internalized how Senate Democrats under Trump escalated so much with so little actual legitimacy.
How the fuck are you supposed to "govern" with that by the way? Did Senate Democrats want something in return for allowing their opponents who won everything to spend 0.2% of the federal budget on their opponents' key issue? Were the Democrats holding out? Negotiating for something they really valued for the American people? Or did they simply drive foundations into bedrock, set themselves in concrete, and pout "Waaa. The Red Team is NEVER getting this. DRUUUMPF!"
(Also, having a trifecta also doesn't preclude that you do actually control the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority, as Obama did when he got ACA through - yes it's easy to "govern" when your opponents literally can't do the spoiled shutdown tactic.)
The other implication of your observation that when Democrats have had a trifecta, Senate Republicans have agreed so much with what Democrats were doing that they didn't sabotage it. This lends credence to the uniparty theory. Before Trump there weren't really two parties, which is probably not something you wanted to be proud of - that Democratic governance is so satisfying to bootlicking Republican Senators that they eat it up.
|
oBlade simultaneously arguing that Republicans are responsible and never throw tantrums that shut down the government, but also Trump was entirely within his rights to shut down the government by refusing to sign a spending bill without funds for a Mexican border wall that half of his own party didn't even want is genuinely funny, although not quite as funny as the essay he wrote about how nobody should laugh at Republicans having sloppy gay sex before and after the funeral of their beloved homophobic podcaster.
|
On September 25 2025 19:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2025 18:37 MJG wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y4de02x3woIs it a realistic possibility that the US Government is going to go into shut down, or will the Democrats fold? This seems like the kind of tactic that the Republicans have been perfectly happy to use to get their way when a Democrat has been in the White House, but that Democrats are unwilling to use when a Republican is in the White House. Democrats caused the longest shutdown ever in Trump's first term. You probably don't remember because it's the government, so nobody noticed they stopped doing nothing. Show nested quote +On September 25 2025 13:52 Phyanketto wrote:
So how we feeling on the ice shooter? The fact that "anti-ice" was written on the casings is pretty braindead. He attacked a facility and only killed detainees, but all the news and government talking heads are speaking like ice agents themselves were the ones injured and killed. Prima facie idiocy, even. Luigi really did a number on these people that every staged event now has bullets with writing on them, and they keep getting dumber and dumber.
Kash can't even stage a false flag right. I'm not the only one who thinks that's what this is right? Eventually they're going to find the shooter was trans or something, mark my words, because they can't stop themselves from double dipping every time. ICE was obviously the target. There is no contingent of people who are mad at ICE for detaining and deporting people instead of executing them, who would write "FUCK ICE" on bullets, snipe carefully at an ICE facility avoiding killing the hero ICE agents that the shooter is mad aren't doing what they're supposed to which is kill, and then commit suicide, rather than just shooting all the brown people he sees, like the guy in El Paso did. It doesn't make a lick of sense. The government can write on a shell casing with a marker, sure, anyone could do that. But they can't find someone to do a mission like that and shoot themselves, they can't find someone they would trust not to expose the conspiracy, and they can't find someone who they could promise wouldn't get caught or shot and believe it, after every single other person has been caught or shot.
I like the thread dichotomy between "the fascists deserve it and whst did they expect?" with "these recent shootings are actually right-wing." I understand why they don't like the bullets though, it makes it harder to pin an event on their preferred target in the immediate aftermath. Meanwhile we are to assume that since he shot into a van he couldn't see into and hit people he didnt intend, it's a false flag. A very devoted one, since the shooter killed himself after, as you said. But maybe Luigi was a false flag, after all the person he killed was head of a company that didnt do anything to him. And no one pushed back on this as of yet. Really losing it in here recently.
|
On September 25 2025 18:37 MJG wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y4de02x3woIs it a realistic possibility that the US Government is going to go into shut down, or will the Democrats fold? This seems like the kind of tactic that the Republicans have been perfectly happy to use to get their way when a Democrat has been in the White House, but that Democrats are unwilling to use when a Republican is in the White House.
They need to shut it down for a lot more than just some piddling healthcare subsidies. Doubtful they'll manage to even get those.
This might be the last time Trump lets them even be in a position to deny him and they will give it away for nothing.
|
On September 25 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:
Meanwhile we are to assume that since he shot into a van he couldn't see into and hit people he didnt intend, it's a false flag. A very devoted one, since the shooter killed himself after, as you said.
I'm going to preface this by saying that I don't think this is a false flag operation, but you do realise that evidence can be planted?
It's entirely possible (although incredibly unlikely) that the FBI found anti-immigrant evidence when they located the shooter, but then planted anti-ICE evidence in its place. The shooter wouldn't even need to be in on the false flag operation.
Again, I don't think that's what happened, I just wanted to point out that your counter-argument doesn't disprove what a hypothetical false flag conspiracy theorist would be perpetuating.
I may have been watching too much X-Files recently lmao...
|
I find it hilarious but also very consistent with his general view of the world that Ryzada bases his political views on 70-es in communist Poland.
I'm not that old but know enough people who are and who lived through Yugoslavian version of communism to tell you that this stealing shit wasn't related to communism itself but with two things, mind you, this is my opinion, but Slavs generally have this attitude of fuck the company they don't pay me enough for this shit so I'll steal whenever I can plus the countries were mismanaged and there was a lot of poverty so people also kind of had to do this.
This kind of shit was very prevalent in Croatia after we became a capitalist country, up until the point where people were starting to get paid livable wages and everything professionalized.
Regarding the ICE shooter, it seems like this is another terminally online , did it for the memes edgelord, this time, unlike the CK shooter one that is far less competent and much further down the 4chan rabbithole.
I'm not an expert, but I knew a guy very similar to this one who radicalized himself on these boards to a point where he got fired and dissipated from the face of the earth, and this is in Croatia, I'm sure it's way more prevalent in the USA, that, plus the general accessibility of guns and apparently this shit being trendy and this shit is looking very grim.
Of course, the ghouls in the USA government don't give a fuck, they will use this guy just like they did the CK shooter to go after their opposition.
|
On September 25 2025 22:24 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:
Meanwhile we are to assume that since he shot into a van he couldn't see into and hit people he didnt intend, it's a false flag. A very devoted one, since the shooter killed himself after, as you said. I'm going to preface this by saying that I don't think this is a false flag operation, but you do realise that evidence can be planted? It's entirely possible (although incredibly unlikely) that the FBI found anti-immigrant evidence when they located the shooter, but then planted anti-ICE evidence in its place. The shooter wouldn't even need to be in on the false flag operation. Again, I don't think that's what happened, I just wanted to point out that your counter-argument doesn't disprove what a hypothetical false flag conspiracy theorist would be perpetuating. I may have been watching too much X-Files recently lmao...
Eveything is technically "possible" but it's not a good explanation when you add it up. For example the reason he missed was because he was shooting into a vehicle. And like I said there's this odd but maybe expected thing going on where the "gestopo" deserves to be resisted and maybe shot at, but if it ever happens its obviously just someone trying to make us look bad! But what you sre saying is true of evey conspiracy theory, hence the famous joke about conspiracy theories.
+ Show Spoiler +
A man who believes the CIA killed JFK dies and goes to heaven. He asks God "who killed JFK?" God replies, "Lee Harvey Oswald, and he acted alone." The man says "wow, this goes higher than I thought!"
|
While the White House is saying they'll mass fire government employees in the case of a shutdown, they're still re-hiring employees that DOGE fired:
"The General Services Administration has given the employees — who managed government workspaces — until the end of the week to accept or decline reinstatement, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press. Those who accept must report for duty on Oct. 6 after what amounts to a seven-month paid vacation, during which time the GSA in some cases racked up high costs — passed along to taxpayers — to stay in dozens of properties whose leases it had slated for termination or were allowed to expire."
|
On September 25 2025 22:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2025 22:24 MJG wrote:On September 25 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:
Meanwhile we are to assume that since he shot into a van he couldn't see into and hit people he didnt intend, it's a false flag. A very devoted one, since the shooter killed himself after, as you said. I'm going to preface this by saying that I don't think this is a false flag operation, but you do realise that evidence can be planted? It's entirely possible (although incredibly unlikely) that the FBI found anti-immigrant evidence when they located the shooter, but then planted anti-ICE evidence in its place. The shooter wouldn't even need to be in on the false flag operation. Again, I don't think that's what happened, I just wanted to point out that your counter-argument doesn't disprove what a hypothetical false flag conspiracy theorist would be perpetuating. I may have been watching too much X-Files recently lmao... Eveything is technically "possible" but it's not a good explanation when you add it up. For example the reason he missed was because he was shooting into a vehicle. And like I said there's this odd but maybe expected thing going on where the "gestopo" deserves to be resisted and maybe shot at, but if it ever happens its obviously just someone trying to make us look bad! But what you sre saying is true of evey conspiracy theory, hence the famous joke about conspiracy theories. + Show Spoiler +
A man who believes the CIA killed JFK dies and goes to heaven. He asks God "who killed JFK?" God replies, "Lee Harvey Oswald, and he acted alone." The man says "wow, this goes higher than I thought!"
It can't be that people are attacking law enforcement and a party is responding with anti-attacking law enforcement policies. That's too simple. That's what they expect us to believe. It must actually be that the people who want to enact anti-attacking law enforcement policies are staging attacks on law enforcement to justify it. Now I'm an insider who figured it all out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
