|
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 October 01 2025 15:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 11:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2025 10:54 LightSpectra wrote:On October 01 2025 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2025 09:35 WombaT wrote:
Maybe ya got it wrong GH, maybe there’s that?
I know you’re incapable of considering that but, try? My last post literally ended with "My mistake"? But sure, what are you thinking? LightSpectra claimed something I hadn't heard here or otherwise as a documented fact so I expected someone to be able to provide supporting citations (I've found no corroborating evidence/reports personally, but still don't rule it out) and/or say the "quite a lot of documented cases" seemingly came from their imagination. Kwark, being the resident WWII/European history buff with a penchant for telling people they're wrong about stuff, I thought it seemed right up his alley (either confirming it as a fact or identifying it as something LightSpectra made up). There either are "quite a lot of documented cases" or there aren't. My inclination/cursory research indicates there are not. If anyone has citations that demonstrate otherwise, they're welcome provide them. Otherwise, it's reasonable to recognize that LightSpectra just pulled that "fact" out their ass. I gave you one example to start with and you indicated you had zero intention of acting in good faith, so why would I put in any effort after that? You mentioned one quote seemingly talking about Hitler voters from an ~900pg book/diary of an SPD voter. That's not even an example, let alone evidence of "quite a lot of documented cases". You also preemptively prefaced it by saying you weren't going to put in the effort to provide supporting evidence for your unsupported assertion of fact with "I'm not going to go trudging through archives to win an Internet argument". Maybe ya got it wrong Light, try considering that? + Show Spoiler +This is a very wild tangent with absolutely nothing to do with US politics, but I agree with you that I don't think there are many NSDAP voters who at some point between 1933 and 1939 recognised their mistake.
Documentation is obviously patchy, but everything indicates the NSDAP's popularity increased immensely from when they barely scraped a plurality in 1933 to when the army blitzed into Paris. It is obviously influenced by propaganda, which never stopped proclaiming how wonderful the Nazis were, and the flip side of, initially, the SA beating/murdering dissenters, and later the Gestapo vanishing "enemies of the state". No doubt there's plenty of people with dissenting political opinion who regretted immediately what had happened to their country in 1933. Communists, for obvious reasons, among the most vocal. But if there's cases of people regretting their vote for NSDAP, it isn't well documented. Obviously helps that the opinions of people in Dachau weren't documented, so if there's some Jews, homosexuals, socialists, Slavs, mothers who refused to enroll their children in the Hitler Jugend, or other "enemies of the state" who initially voted for the NSDAP but ended up in a camp later, their voices got quashed and all that survived is an ever increasing number of people expressing how wonderful the Nazis were. At least, until 1945, when everyone had always hated the Nazis, of course.
Anyway, as I said, wildly offtopic, so I won't follow up on it, but TLDR, I don't agree with lightspectra and fully agree that that statement comes with a [citation needed].
A refreshing drop of integrity in a sea of salt
On October 01 2025 19:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 18:53 Vivax wrote:
What‘s jeopardized ? Everything tbh. Trump is a monster and he doesn‘t hide it.
He got other people hiding things for him and his cult of followers. DarkPlasmaBall's question is what is at risk with the shutdown that isn't otherwise at risk. Everything is always at risk with Trump, what does the shutdown allow him to that he couldn't do otherwise.
It's not exactly clear. "Allow" is another nebulous term in this context but the general consensus is that it would basically make it legally easier for Trump to do what he's already been doing.
Fetterman, who was the only Democrat to vote for the GOP funding proposal earlier this month, has repeatedly said he wants to avoid a government shutdown and has warned fellow Democrats about overplaying their hand on a funding stopgap.
The Pennsylvania senator on Tuesday warned that a shutdown would empower President Trump to gut Democratic priorities and enable White House budget director Russell Vought to implement Project 2025, the conservative blueprint to overhaul the federal government.
“The president has a lot of levers he could pull. This is one we could pull, but why would we pull that lever? Because that allows him to pull a lot more levers,” Fetterman told reporters on Capitol Hill
“I think that would be the ideal for Project 2025,” he added.
thehill.com
|
On October 01 2025 16:21 pmh wrote:
This should be exactly what you want gh. Does the system not first have to break down completely in your pov.
The democrats will make a compromise. My guess its going to take a while because there is lots to do. Somewhere between 1 and 2 months. It will probably be solved just before christmass and then next year shutdown again.
I'd prefer Democrat voters just recognize the futility of Democrats and become socialists based on their reasoning skills before it's too late (if it isn't already).
I'm not confident Democrats have it in them to force a negotiation. It feels more likely that Republicans find 5 more Democrats to join them without conceding anything (or maybe bribing them with some pork).
|
Shrodingers democrats.
Even when they do something to actually try and fight against the government that is being openly fascistic GH would rather attack them then to give them props for at least trying.
I think that both Schumer and Jeffries are feckless, meek and corrupt pieces of shit, but since they are at least trying to do something this time I support their decision to do so.
Since Trump is posting insane AI shit to attack them, at least that shows that this bothers him enough to attack them, which is the first sign of either of these guys being any sort of a real opposition to what is going on since the inauguration.
About oBlade, he obviously doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do much else other then regurgitate Tucker Carlson talking points when he "tries to argue".
Addressing his honestly moronic attempts at being witty and sarcastic seems unnecessary. He's not even trying to argue, he's trying to be funny and failing miserably, it's much more sad then anything else.
|
On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:Shrodingers democrats. Even when they do something to actually try and fight against the government that is being openly fascistic GH would rather attack them then to give them props for at least trying. I think that both Schumer and Jeffries are feckless, meek and corrupt pieces of shit, but since they are at least trying to do something this time I support their decision to do so. Since Trump is posting insane AI shit to attack them, at least that shows that this bothers him enough to attack them, which is the first sign of either of these guys being any sort of a real opposition to what is going on since the inauguration. + Show Spoiler +About oBlade, he obviously doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do much else other then regurgitate Tucker Carlson talking points when he "tries to argue".
Addressing his honestly moronic attempts at being witty and sarcastic seems unnecessary. He's not even trying to argue, he's trying to be funny and failing miserably, it's much more sad then anything else.
They aren't trying to fight an openly fascistic government lol.
They (not even all of them) are doing the bare minimum to give the superficial optics that they are willing to go along with Republicans' fascist takeover in exchange for knowingly insufficient healthcare subsidies.
That's one reason I asked their supporters here if that's what they want Democrats to make their acquiescence contingent on.
|
Recognizing the futility of democrats and becoming socialists doesn't mean anything. You can be a socialist and still realize that the only political infrastructure capable of organizing anything of note for the left is the democratic party.
Show me the socialist party candidate on the ballot that can win and I will vote for him.
|
Do you like people dying from lack of healthcare?
Do you care that there is the whole rest of the world? Without anyone in the US providing any resistance to Trump's merry little band of fascists the world is getting an impression that all Americans think that this imperialist, genocidal, mercantilist shit is something all Americans are on board? You OK with that?
Why would anyone feel inspired to try and get out to vote for Democrats in the midterms, which is still, at this moment, the best chance of putting breaks on the descent in to fascism.
Just because you, in your infinite wisdom that has nothing to do with your feelings being hurt, only with your astute analysis decided that Democratic party should be burnt down and shat on constantly, it doesn't mean that the whole rest of 350 million Americans are down for your violent revolution.
I know I am not, and I'm even more insulated form the consequences then you are, this shit would crash the world economy, cause untold suffering as a consequence of that, but at least you'd get your revenge over the lover that scorned you.
|
On October 01 2025 22:15 Jankisa wrote:
I know I am not, and I'm even more insulated form the consequences then you are, this shit would crash the world economy, cause untold suffering as a consequence of that, but at least you'd get your revenge over the lover that scorned you.
Do we seriously think the world economy isn’t going to crash in the next 5-10 years anyway? If not sooner?
|
I believe it didn't have to.
The system we had before this malignant tumor was elected back into power, while not perfect worked for most people.
I have a hard time believing it's not going to due to Trump's blatantly corrupt schemes, mercantilism, pushing Crypto, fucking around with the value of the Dollar, extorting countries like India, putting insane tariffs on allies for no reason, fucking with America's food and labor supply, deregulating and letting all kinds of monopolistic shit happen, shuttering wind and solar projects and so much more.
|
On October 01 2025 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 10:32 LightSpectra wrote:
Looks like we're officially shutting down.
"A shutdown falls on the President's lack of leadership. He can't even control his own party and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the president is weak." -- Donald Trump in 2013 I wonder how long it'll last and if Trump/Republicans will really start mass firings? I also wonder whether people think Democrats should hold out on passing a "clean CR", for how long, and what the minimum they should accept is?
I think one reason you get so few takers on “Okay, what should be done?” posts is that a lot of what we’re watching fundamentally undercuts our systems’ premises and foundational assumptions. It’s not clear what rebuilding those foundations would look like, or how we can expect those systems to work adequately under the circumstances.
As an example: the reason SCOTUS has lifetime appointments is because it was always supposed to be a nonpartisan, professional “balls and strikes” institution. Technocratic, if you like. For those purposes having seats be determined by the semi-unpredictable whims of biology is meant to ensure there’s no obvious way for partisans to seize control of the court. But once everyone understands justices are partisan, and figures it’s just another power center to battle over like Congress or the Presidency, lifetime appointments becomes a ludicrous system. It’s like having a legislature in which seats are determined primarily by your faction’s actuarial understanding; if you can predict your people’s deaths far enough in advance, you’ll always have an opportunity to have them step down and replaced with someone younger, and you’ll never lose a seat.
This budgetary process wasn’t functioning *well* before, but it is kind of fundamentally broken by an executive that feels completely unconstrained by Congress’s dictates. If Congress allocated money for something, and the executive doesn’t like it? Doesn’t happen. If Congress didn’t allocate money for something the executive wants to do? It happens anyway. What, then, is the point of the budget anyway?
Then there’s this farce where Republicans are gloating that a shutdown gives Trump some new powers to carry out mass firings. That’s ludicrous as a matter of law. But what do legal protections mean now anyway? He’s been firing people all year that were supposedly entitled to legal protections against this kind of arbitrary dismissal, and court cases have been playing out all year but they’re mostly not getting hired back. Maybe in a few years the court cases will conclude and they’ll get awarded a bunch of back pay, maybe they won’t, but in the meantime there doesn’t appear to be any mechanism preventing Trump from reconstituting the government however he sees fit, regardless of any shutdown.
Anyway. “What should the Democrats do?” IMO the only reason to be talking about the Democrats at all is if we’re hoping that defeating Republicans in some future election is going to end this, or at least if the threat of that will somewhat restrain the worst abuses. With that in mind, I think it makes perfect sense to choose something like the ACA subsidies – a popular, kitchen-table provision that people are already enjoying, and which the Republicans would be eliminating with a “clean” CR. If they succeed, it will mean Republicans are chastened by unpopularity out of a change they wanted to make, which is bullish. If they fail (e.g. if Republicans nuke the filibuster) they can point to the premium increases people will experience and pretty plausibly say “we did everything we could to prevent this, you’d better vote out these Republicans if you don’t like it.” None of that is even pretending to “fix” any of the ongoing catastrophes but I don’t see how any Dem response to the budget shutdown could.
This is all probably a waste of a mental exercise though, they’ll probably just demand Trump promise not to fire more people or something, not even get that promise, and then fold anyway.
|
On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:
About oBlade, he obviously doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do much else other then regurgitate Tucker Carlson talking points when he "tries to argue".
Addressing his honestly moronic attempts at being witty and sarcastic seems unnecessary. He's not even trying to argue, he's trying to be funny and failing miserably, it's much more sad then anything else.
Which ones? Without watching Tucker Carlson you would have no awareness of what his alleged talking points are or aren't.
I did see his new interview with Charlie Sheen and I found both of them, including the recovering drug addict, far more compelling, nuanced, grounded, and frankly convincing than "muh fascists, muh bootlickers, muh fascist bootlickers."
|
Northern Ireland25800 Posts
On October 01 2025 23:16 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 01 2025 10:32 LightSpectra wrote:
Looks like we're officially shutting down.
"A shutdown falls on the President's lack of leadership. He can't even control his own party and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the president is weak." -- Donald Trump in 2013 I wonder how long it'll last and if Trump/Republicans will really start mass firings? I also wonder whether people think Democrats should hold out on passing a "clean CR", for how long, and what the minimum they should accept is? I think one reason you get so few takers on “Okay, what should be done?” posts is that a lot of what we’re watching fundamentally undercuts our systems’ premises and foundational assumptions. It’s not clear what rebuilding those foundations would look like, or how we can expect those systems to work adequately under the circumstances. As an example: the reason SCOTUS has lifetime appointments is because it was always supposed to be a nonpartisan, professional “balls and strikes” institution. Technocratic, if you like. For those purposes having seats be determined by the semi-unpredictable whims of biology is meant to ensure there’s no obvious way for partisans to seize control of the court. But once everyone understands justices are partisan, and figures it’s just another power center to battle over like Congress or the Presidency, lifetime appointments becomes a ludicrous system. It’s like having a legislature in which seats are determined primarily by your faction’s actuarial understanding; if you can predict your people’s deaths far enough in advance, you’ll always have an opportunity to have them step down and replaced with someone younger, and you’ll never lose a seat. This budgetary process wasn’t functioning *well* before, but it is kind of fundamentally broken by an executive that feels completely unconstrained by Congress’s dictates. If Congress allocated money for something, and the executive doesn’t like it? Doesn’t happen. If Congress didn’t allocate money for something the executive wants to do? It happens anyway. What, then, is the point of the budget anyway? Then there’s this farce where Republicans are gloating that a shutdown gives Trump some new powers to carry out mass firings. That’s ludicrous as a matter of law. But what do legal protections mean now anyway? He’s been firing people all year that were supposedly entitled to legal protections against this kind of arbitrary dismissal, and court cases have been playing out all year but they’re mostly not getting hired back. Maybe in a few years the court cases will conclude and they’ll get awarded a bunch of back pay, maybe they won’t, but in the meantime there doesn’t appear to be any mechanism preventing Trump from reconstituting the government however he sees fit, regardless of any shutdown. Anyway. “What should the Democrats do?” IMO the only reason to be talking about the Democrats at all is if we’re hoping that defeating Republicans in some future election is going to end this, or at least if the threat of that will somewhat restrain the worst abuses. With that in mind, I think it makes perfect sense to choose something like the ACA subsidies – a popular, kitchen-table provision that people are already enjoying, and which the Republicans would be eliminating with a “clean” CR. If they succeed, it will mean Republicans are chastened by unpopularity out of a change they wanted to make, which is bullish. If they fail (e.g. if Republicans nuke the filibuster) they can point to the premium increases people will experience and pretty plausibly say “we did everything we could to prevent this, you’d better vote out these Republicans if you don’t like it.” None of that is even pretending to “fix” any of the ongoing catastrophes but I don’t see how any Dem response to the budget shutdown could. This is all probably a waste of a mental exercise though, they’ll probably just demand Trump promise not to fire more people or something, not even get that promise, and then fold anyway.
Yeah excellent post, this is pretty bang on the money.
I think there’s something of a conflation of two different phenomena here. How can the Dems connect with people and be more popular to win elections, and what can they do in government, or indeed opposition?
I’ll happily slam them for things I think they do wrong in the former.
In the latter at times I’m unsure what they can really do? If the system is dysfunctional, and grows increasingly so. They’re fundamentally a party of the system, and most of their potential support base are as well. They may desire a better functioning system, but not supplanting it with something radical.
But how do you reform it? You’re almost relying on something like a huge political schism emerging in Republicans and their support opening the door a crack to do some bipartisan stuff and be filibuster-proof.
Which almost seems as unlikely as the whole system breaking down and being replaced in a radical manner.
|
Let‘s pretend that war crimes aren‘t legal already for old times sake.
|
Northern Ireland25800 Posts
On October 01 2025 23:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:
About oBlade, he obviously doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do much else other then regurgitate Tucker Carlson talking points when he "tries to argue".
Addressing his honestly moronic attempts at being witty and sarcastic seems unnecessary. He's not even trying to argue, he's trying to be funny and failing miserably, it's much more sad then anything else. Which ones? Without watching Tucker Carlson you would have no awareness of what his alleged talking points are or aren't. I did see his new interview with Charlie Sheen and I found both of them, including the recovering drug addict, far more compelling, nuanced, grounded, and frankly convincing than "muh fascists, muh bootlickers, muh fascist bootlickers."
I think most of us would rather not be chatting about Fascist bootlicking at all on account of it being a very niche hobby, but alas here we are
|
On October 01 2025 23:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 23:21 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:
About oBlade, he obviously doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do much else other then regurgitate Tucker Carlson talking points when he "tries to argue".
Addressing his honestly moronic attempts at being witty and sarcastic seems unnecessary. He's not even trying to argue, he's trying to be funny and failing miserably, it's much more sad then anything else. Which ones? Without watching Tucker Carlson you would have no awareness of what his alleged talking points are or aren't. I did see his new interview with Charlie Sheen and I found both of them, including the recovering drug addict, far more compelling, nuanced, grounded, and frankly convincing than "muh fascists, muh bootlickers, muh fascist bootlickers." I think most of us would rather not be chatting about Fascist bootlicking at all on account of it being a very niche hobby, but alas here we are
That‘s the point of fascism, if it comes, it comes hardcore.
I‘m choosing to be on the wrong side of the river here. But the risk of being there is increasing.
The full technological capabilities a fascist USA would have already were already a pretty scarring experience after wanting to find out.
Maybe the supply of new porn at the NSA has been running low lately so they‘ve been getting a bit irritable.
Fuck it at this point I‘m just going into early retirement for a bit of fishing and whoring.
|
On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:
Shrodingers democrats.
Even when they do something to actually try and fight against the government that is being openly fascistic GH would rather attack them then to give them props for at least trying.
It's not just GH that does this. You ever notice how people criticize Democrats?
They air attack ads emphasizing how Republicans will make your life actively worse: "You can't just run on 'we're not Republicans,' nobody is excited about that!"
They air ads about what they plan to do for their constituents: "How can they act like everything is normal while Republicans are doing XYZ travesty!"
I'm not saying Democrats are beyond criticism or that it's wrong to do so, but people have impossibly high standards for a big tent political party that represents almost a hundred million voters across fifty states. And frankly, it's infuriating having to listen to frivolous shit like "Democrats are boring, why can't they excite their base" while ICE is actively disappearing people.
|
On October 01 2025 23:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:
About oBlade, he obviously doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do much else other then regurgitate Tucker Carlson talking points when he "tries to argue".
Addressing his honestly moronic attempts at being witty and sarcastic seems unnecessary. He's not even trying to argue, he's trying to be funny and failing miserably, it's much more sad then anything else. Which ones? Without watching Tucker Carlson you would have no awareness of what his alleged talking points are or aren't. I did see his new interview with Charlie Sheen and I found both of them, including the recovering drug addict, far more compelling, nuanced, grounded, and frankly convincing than "muh fascists, muh bootlickers, muh fascist bootlickers."
I'm sure that after you finished furiously masturbating while watching pistol Pete and daddy Trump cosplay Patton and Mussolini watching your idol interview a maniac was compelling, nuanced and grounded to you, that might be the first honest thing you wrote here all year.
User was warned for this post
|
Northern Ireland25800 Posts
On October 02 2025 00:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:
Shrodingers democrats.
Even when they do something to actually try and fight against the government that is being openly fascistic GH would rather attack them then to give them props for at least trying. It's not just GH that does this. You ever notice how people criticize Democrats? They air attack ads emphasizing how Republicans will make your life actively worse: "You can't just run on 'we're not Republicans,' nobody is excited about that!" They air ads about what they plan to do for their constituents: "How can they act like everything is normal while Republicans are doing XYZ travesty!" I'm not saying Democrats are beyond criticism or that it's wrong to do so, but people have impossibly high standards for a big tent political party that represents almost a hundred million voters across fifty states. And frankly, it's infuriating having to listen to frivolous shit like "Democrats are boring, why can't they excite their base" while ICE is actively disappearing people.
These were questions for the last cycle.
As I said at the time, and I’m plenty critical of the Dems myself.
If you think they’re useless, ineffectual, whatever. Do you want them to be running defence against nascent Fascism?
If you don’t have faith in them being a sufficient bulwark, well, it somewhat logically follows that you shouldn’t want them to be put in that position in the first place.
If you don’t think that’s relevant and alternate mechanisms will stem the Fascist tide, OK, what’s the plan there?
I don’t think the Dems can stem that tide especially well myself, equally I don’t think they’d implement it. Worst case you get 4 years of a dissatisfying holding pattern
Trump isn’t getting any younger either. There isn’t another obvious figurehead who can galvanise that base like he can. But gaining power, well that does energise things more broadly. MAGA isn’t a one-term blip anymore it’s much more ensconced and structurally maturing.
|
it is funny listening to Canadians whine about a 100% foreign film tariff.
Bob and Doug Mackenzie have come full circle.
The whole thing is hilarious seeing Trump's sledgehammer and chainsaw methods juxtaposed to Canada's surgical approach to growing a domestic film industry
On October 01 2025 13:50 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 08:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/29/bls-wont-be-releasing-data-including-fridays-key-jobs-report-in-case-of-a-shutdown.html The Labor Department is preparing for what would amount to a news and data blackout should the U.S. government suspend operations.
The department has several key reports upcoming that will provide important clues about the direction of the economy and inform Fed policymakers ahead of their next meeting in October. i'm surprised these people wouldn't be deemed essential workers. I know a half dozen US government workers deemed as essential... who really ... aren't. this same kind of info blackout occurred during the 2019 shutdown. Seems par for the course here. If you expect bad stats, fire the people who would make those stats, then find someone who is willing to put his name under good stats, or just claim the stats are incredibly awesome.
the other 5 shut downs my older in laws saw had the same information black out because the same departments ceased operations. same shit.. different decade.
That said, my wife's aunt's and uncles who are pushing 60 have experienced 2 of their 5 lifetime career blackouts under Trump.
Trump's constant brinksmanship is wearing thin on me.
|
On October 02 2025 00:25 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 23:21 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:
About oBlade, he obviously doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do much else other then regurgitate Tucker Carlson talking points when he "tries to argue".
Addressing his honestly moronic attempts at being witty and sarcastic seems unnecessary. He's not even trying to argue, he's trying to be funny and failing miserably, it's much more sad then anything else. Which ones? Without watching Tucker Carlson you would have no awareness of what his alleged talking points are or aren't. I did see his new interview with Charlie Sheen and I found both of them, including the recovering drug addict, far more compelling, nuanced, grounded, and frankly convincing than "muh fascists, muh bootlickers, muh fascist bootlickers." I'm sure that after you finished furiously masturbating while watching pistol Pete and daddy Trump cosplay Patton and Mussolini watching your idol interview a maniac was compelling, nuanced and grounded to you, that might be the first honest thing you wrote here all year.
I didn't watch the Quantico meeting.
Patton and Mussolini were on opposite teams, kiddo.
|
On October 02 2025 00:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 21:29 Jankisa wrote:
Shrodingers democrats.
Even when they do something to actually try and fight against the government that is being openly fascistic GH would rather attack them then to give them props for at least trying. It's not just GH that does this. You ever notice how people criticize Democrats? They air attack ads emphasizing how Republicans will make your life actively worse: "You can't just run on 'we're not Republicans,' nobody is excited about that!" They air ads about what they plan to do for their constituents: "How can they act like everything is normal while Republicans are doing XYZ travesty!" I'm not saying Democrats are beyond criticism or that it's wrong to do so, but people have impossibly high standards for a big tent political party that represents almost a hundred million voters across fifty states. And frankly, it's infuriating having to listen to frivolous shit like "Democrats are boring, why can't they excite their base" while ICE is actively disappearing people.
Well, as I wrote a few times in this thread, that's why I'm a big fan of political pluralism, the duopoly in the US favors the right much more then the left, because the left, famously, eats it's children.
With that being said, telling that to GH who is a walking contradiction because he recently posted something critical of Democrats doing purity testing and word policing but also at the same time doing purity testing on anyone who didn't say that Israel is a demonspawn country trying to kill everyone, it just makes no sense, he doesn't really have a coherent approach to politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
