|
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 02 2025 00:42 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 00:25 Jankisa wrote: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.
I'm sure you didn't buddy 
|
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. + Show Spoiler +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 [Democrats] probably just demand Trump promise not to fire more people or something, not even get that promise, and then fold anyway.
That's sorta the point. If we actually think and talk about what Democrats should/could/would do it becomes pretty undeniably obvious they are a waste of our time. The things that even their steadfast supporters acknowledge need to be done and what Democrats are willing/capable of doing simply don't overlap.
Confronting that contradiction is hard/scary so people are holding out on that with their typical mock and gawk until they can return to just thoughtlessly spamming variations of "vote blue no matter who or you're a MAGAt!" instead.
|
|
|
Good that the D party is using what power they have in opposition. A concrete action with specific demands and clear consequences. I personally think they ask for too little but apart from that it is a satisfactory measure.
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
Wonder if he will end up with more cases added to this and the ones in his previous stay, still early in the presidency.
As a side note, in many other countries a failure to get a budget approved brings down the current elected officials and forces a new election. Or at a minimum an election of a new head of state (whatever that might be called in that country).
|
Northern Ireland26776 Posts
By ‘great look’ you mean borderline anti-Semitic ramblings from someone who’s a proven bullshitter?
|
United States43979 Posts
On October 02 2025 00:42 oBlade wrote:
Patton and Mussolini were on opposite teams, kiddo.
Which must surely prevent the cosplay because cosplay must be historically accurate at all times. Congrats. Another lib owned.
|
On October 02 2025 00:01 Vivax wrote:
The full technological capabilities a fascist USA would have already were already a pretty scarring experience after wanting to find out.
These capabilities are one thing that I think many older people are missing. They are also something that famous stories about the dangers of fascism miss. Surveillance will catch people way before they even start seeking out secure communication methods or guides on how to resist. The devices and technologies will be illegal long before people realise that they would need them. The increased complexity of technology also limits your ability to create things without external knowledge. Dissatisfied people will be easy to spot, given all the data being collected.
The USA is also so important in the economy and infrastructure that other countries will have a hard time breaking free, and they are not the only party that will gladly abuse these capabilities. China and Gulf states are obvious ones, but even the EU is dealing with a potential mix of chat control and far-right parties. The good thing is that current actions are already causing some concern, but nobody seems to like to scare people with more direct actions and rhetoric about the dangers of a nuclear superpower that has fallen to fascism. The cost of preventative actions is high. Thus, it is easier to try to wait things out, hoping things get better in four years or so.
|
On October 02 2025 01:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 00:42 oBlade wrote:
Patton and Mussolini were on opposite teams, kiddo. Which must surely prevent the cosplay because cosplay must be historically accurate at all times. Congrats. Another lib owned.
Patton wasn't a fascist, either.
|
|
|
I mentioned Patton because Whiskey Pete was clearly trying to cosplay Patton's speech from the start of the movie:
And Trump was clearly trying to invoke authoritarian and fascist ideology with his use of "the enemy within" phrasing, so if we are going to compare him to someone, why not go with the most famous fascist of them all.
Boom, educated!
|
On October 02 2025 01:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 01:41 KwarK wrote:On October 02 2025 00:42 oBlade wrote:
Patton and Mussolini were on opposite teams, kiddo. Which must surely prevent the cosplay because cosplay must be historically accurate at all times. Congrats. Another lib owned. Patton wasn't a fascist, either.
The point.
You.
|
United States43979 Posts
On October 02 2025 01:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 01:41 KwarK wrote:On October 02 2025 00:42 oBlade wrote:
Patton and Mussolini were on opposite teams, kiddo. Which must surely prevent the cosplay because cosplay must be historically accurate at all times. Congrats. Another lib owned. Patton wasn't a fascist, either.
Which must surely prevent the comparison because clearly what was meant was that the cosplay was taking the fascism of Patton and the temperance of Mussolini. That's the logical interpretation of what he meant. If Patton wasn't a fascist then the whole thing just breaks down. Congrats, I think you got him again.
|
On October 02 2025 02:11 Jankisa wrote:I mentioned Patton because Whiskey Pete was clearly trying to cosplay Patton's speech from the start of the movie: And Trump was clearly trying to invoke authoritarian and fascist ideology with his use of "the enemy within" phrasing, so if we are going to compare him to someone, why not go with the most famous fascist of them all. Boom, educated!
Whether cosplaying Patton the man or Patton the character, he seems to have forgotten the military uniform, the helmet, and the swagger stick. What other similarities to George C. Scott's speech did you notice besides the background flag of the speaker's country?
|
Fortunately, none that landed successfully.
Cheating Pete, who you and your similarly intellectually challenged fellow citizens put in charge of the most powerful military the world has ever seen by voting for a draft dodger serial rapist has none of the charisma of either the actor or the real life character, and it's honestly insulting to the man's legacy that this moron braggart is even trying to channel his energy.
He tried to, but he's just so, so bad at it that it all looks as sad as your weekend plans.
|
No. That's another idiotic Candace Owens rant.
|
On October 02 2025 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2025 23:16 ChristianS wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +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 [Democrats] probably just demand Trump promise not to fire more people or something, not even get that promise, and then fold anyway. That's sorta the point. If we actually think and talk about what Democrats should/could/would do it becomes pretty undeniably obvious they are a waste of our time. The things that even their steadfast supporters acknowledge need to be done and what Democrats are willing/capable of doing simply don't overlap. Confronting that contradiction is hard/scary so people are holding out on that with their typical mock and gawk until they can return to just thoughtlessly spamming variations of "vote blue no matter who or you're a MAGAt!" instead.
Sure, and I know GreenHorizons feels that way. I guess I was trying to engage with LibHorizons’ challenge (since you often seem frustrated that no one is willing to). Of course, the other reason they might hesitate to engage is because they know LH is a performance, not a true held belief (“bad faith,” someone might say) and they suspect you’ll use any resulting discussion as ammunition for your “stop voting for Democrats” hobby horse.
Personally, I think the position you need to be attacking is not “the Democratic Party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them” (which hardly anybody seems to really buy anyway). It’s “there is no path forward and we can only watch the decline, maybe trying to protect our loved ones from the worst of it.” The “mocking and gawking” seems to me like a natural response if that’s your viewpoint.
I mean, the thing about liberals is their politics is not particularly motivated by self-interest. There’s a kind of “noblesse oblige” to the whole faction. They tend to be pretty affluent, pretty white, and most of their moral commitments don’t particularly impact them personally. If you want to be uncharitable, you could accuse them of being motivated by the appeal of smug self-righteousness and the social standing obtainable through right-think. But in the last election they widely took the position “Donald Trump is an existential threat to our way of life, and if we don’t stop him he’ll create a fascist autocracy.” The general response was “fuck you, everybody hates you, go away and never come back.”
It’s not surprising that the response would be to politically disengage and say “well, we tried to tell you, now I guess we’ll all reap the consequences, you imbeciles,” is it? I’m not saying it’s the right response, or that we need to be more considerate of their feelings or something. But I don’t think there’s much to be accomplished by telling them to despair at the Democrats’ prospects right now. They’re in gallows-humor watch-the-world-burn mode because they’re *already* despairing.
|
Northern Ireland26776 Posts
On October 02 2025 02:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:No. That's another idiotic Candace Owens rant.
Also is there any chance that Jimmy can even vaguely abide by thread rules? For fuck’s sake
|
Northern Ireland26776 Posts
I think there’s probably a case that at least some of those jailed maybe were a case of wrong place, wrong time, or at least just went there to protest and not storm the Capitol, got caught up in things jr whatever. Hey it happens.
The blanket pardoning of people who blatantly went there with ill intent, and committed violence is insane.
It’s like a sewage pipe burst and there’s simply too much shit to focus on any particular spot that’s covered in it, but my lord that was egregious
|
On October 02 2025 04:08 WombaT wrote:I think there’s probably a case that at least some of those jailed maybe were a case of wrong place, wrong time, or at least just went there to protest and not storm the Capitol, got caught up in things jr whatever. Hey it happens. The blanket pardoning of people who blatantly went there with ill intent, and committed violence is insane. It’s like a sewage pipe burst and there’s simply too much shit to focus on any particular spot that’s covered in it, but my lord that was egregious
All blame directed at Republicans gets deflected. I can understand party loyalty, but the level of blind support for Trump is off the charts. Not just some criticism gets deflected, but literally all criticism gets deflected. For example I could point out the hypocrisy of defending January 6 lawlessness while attacking defund the police. This criticism gets deflected using various means such as whataboutism like "Democrats do the same thing!" Whether that claim is true or false is not really the point, it's that - even if true - it changes nothing about Republican hypocrisy. So then they claim "Democrats are actually worse than Republicans, I have to support Trump!" And then they list a point of criticism such as unfettered immigration. Then we point out that those immigrants aren't hurting the country in any capacity whatsoever and Americans would be better served if the immigrants were allowed to stay one way or another. But this obviously true point leads nowhere, because...
Their number one tactic is always to blow up a mouse into an elephant. They did it again just recently by pointing out left-wing violence outpacing right-wing violence (for the first time in ages, assuming it's true). This method is critical to the success of the Republican party. If they weren't allowed to invent elephants, they'd quickly run out of arguments. That's why they always fall out of every cloud and start hitting real low when their elephant gets exposed as a little mouse. It bothers them that they don't have any real elephants in the room, which is precisely why they keep inventing more elephants.
|
On October 02 2025 04:08 WombaT wrote:I think there’s probably a case that at least some of those jailed maybe were a case of wrong place, wrong time, or at least just went there to protest and not storm the Capitol, got caught up in things jr whatever. Hey it happens. The blanket pardoning of people who blatantly went there with ill intent, and committed violence is insane. It’s like a sewage pipe burst and there’s simply too much shit to focus on any particular spot that’s covered in it, but my lord that was egregious
That seems to be the strategy. As long as you constantly spam horrifible, horribly stupid, or otherwise unforgivable shit, no one can focus on one thing long enough so it has consequences for you.
And apparently it works. I don't know why. People are fucking morons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Patton1.jpg)
