|
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 09 2025 06:19 WombaT wrote:Perhaps it’s been posted before, and apologies if so but have any of you watch the long-form Hunter Biden interviewI gotta say, I think he comes across incredibly well. Almost ridiculously so, I didn’t know a huge amount about him outside of his fabled laptop. I wasn’t positively or negatively inclined. I think both being linked to Joe Biden, and also being a crack addict preclude him from running for public office, realistically, but I found myself kind of wishing he did. Which I must say, I went in with that as basically a 0% desire. Hell I delayed even watching the interview for weeks despite my best friend insisting it was worth my time. Which it certainly was, I think he spoke very well on addiction. I think his ability to just ream off numbers and figures about various bodies he was involved with, in a 3 hour long interview, and those numbers generally stand up to scrutiny, well played. I can't remember if I saw all of it but I saw at least a bunch.
He seemed a decent well spoken guy but addiction can destroy anyone.
Not sure about the running for office part tho. America can do a lot better, its just that the bombardment of mass media and sound bites makes someone who can hold an intelligent conversation for more then 20 seconds seem like a breath of fresh air.
|
ICE Barbie vs Chicken Ken.
the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
|
They've already held out longer than I expected honestly, so kudos for that.
I'm curious how long Micro (or anyone else really) wants them to hold out though?
|
United States24802 Posts
If this goes on much longer my work travel to Hawaii to conduct an audit gets cancelled. If it does, the vacation I had planned the following week in Hawaii also gets cancelled. Despite that, caving to the GOP here is just giving up on democracy, so I won't complain.
edit: Oh yeah and I'm working without pay, I suppose.
|
On October 09 2025 09:06 micronesia wrote:
If this goes on much longer my work travel to Hawaii to conduct an audit gets cancelled. If it does, the vacation I had planned the following week in Hawaii also gets cancelled. Despite that, caving to the GOP here is just giving up on democracy, so I won't complain.
edit: Oh yeah and I'm working without pay, I suppose.
Is anything less than permanently continuing the ACA subsidies "caving to the GOP" in your opinion? Or is there something between that and the 1 year extension that you'd want them to take?
|
For political game theory, it would probably be best for the Dems for it to be until after the next presidential election. Then they can use extending it as wedge issue to win votes and campaign on. That being said it seems like the Reps would just campaign on the same thing and then just not do it with no consequences in future voting patterns.
|
By design, these government shutdowns are just a symptom of a failed country because politicians can consistently use it as a bargaining chip without any immediate consequences to themselves. Compared to somewhere like Australia where blocking supply can force an immediate election and result in immediate consequences to the obstructing party.
So I don’t know what the appropriate move for any opposition is beyond purposely throwing spanners into the machinery because that is basically the most effective long term play to kneecap the incumbent.
|
On October 09 2025 09:57 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
By design, these government shutdowns are just a symptom of a failed country because politicians can consistently use it as a bargaining chip without any immediate consequences to themselves.
So I don’t know what the appropriate move for any opposition is beyond purposely throwing spanners into the machinery because that is basically the most effective long term play to kneecap the incumbent.
Well very true this is extra bad for Trump, because why would a guy who was going to cut government spending with the Department of Government Efficiency that was going to save trillions need the debt ceiling raised? A successful businessman, instead of a lifelong politician that ran on many myths but one of the major ones being he was going to fix all this is an extra bad black mark.
Now the cultists won't care the same way they seem to have completely forgotten about the wall and even the little bump about Epstein seems to be mostly forgotten. But I still harbor hope that some will wake up.
Mostly unrelated, when Trump is dead and gone and some time has passed, I predict a huge percentages of the people who voted for him don't admit it.
|
United States44352 Posts
Republicans have effectively proven that there is no amount of sabotage that won’t be blamed on the incumbent by the voters. Democrats should keep the government closed indefinitely and just lie about it, keep repeating on tv that “government” was closed because Trump wants to use it as a set for a new reality tv show. Closed for filming will make sense to enough Americans and the ones who don’t understand it will still accept that it must be true if it is repeated enough times.
Win first, govern later. Party over country. It’s a whole new game and I hate it.
|
On October 09 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote:
Republicans have effectively proven that there is no amount of sabotage that won’t be blamed on the incumbent by the voters. Democrats should keep the government closed indefinitely and just lie about it, keep repeating on tv that “government” was closed because Trump wants to use it as a set for a new reality tv show. Closed for filming will make sense to enough Americans and the ones who don’t understand it will still accept that it must be true if it is repeated enough times.
Win first, govern later. Party over country. It’s a whole new game and I hate it.
Republican voters have made it abundantly clear they're fine being lied to as long as their side wins. Democrats want their representatives to be the adults in the room. Swing voters apparently don't care about anything except egg and gas prices.
|
To be realistic. Laws are probably dead.
It‘s all about power now. Like it used to be, and people in positions of power get selected based on loyalty, not integrity or skill.
If they refuse he simply boots them.
War crimes are legal.
Everything is an act.
But the actors are mid.
They‘ll plunge the planet into wars to save their own ass.
Any selective information from the owners of the biggest surveillance state in the world is suspicious.
|
On October 09 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote:
Republicans have effectively proven that there is no amount of sabotage that won’t be blamed on the incumbent by the voters. Democrats should keep the government closed indefinitely and just lie about it, keep repeating on tv that “government” was closed because Trump wants to use it as a set for a new reality tv show. Closed for filming will make sense to enough Americans and the ones who don’t understand it will still accept that it must be true if it is repeated enough times.
Win first, govern later. Party over country. It’s a whole new game and I hate it.
Democrats should keep the shutdown going, and then find sufficiently rich backer(s) to plaster the Donald Trump "shutdowns are due to bad presidents" quote on every billboard in the red states lol.
|
On October 09 2025 05:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 04:51 KT_Elwood wrote:
Some guy in a checkered suit just claimed that
"Portland Police works together with trans-terrorists and antifa, to sacrifice their own citizens"
oBlade! Pack your stuff, save america! The Trans-Antifa-Police of Democrats is eating children! That's Nick Sortor, if you follow the news he was arrested in Portland, he says after being attacked when he was the victim defending himself. The police said no, he was instigating. He said I'll sue you for civil rights violations and the DOJ said they would investigate the police department, and the DA said nevermind he acted in self-defense. The idea he's alleging is leftist rioters and police function as a cartel working together.
He said (and you can check back on the video)
"There are trans-terrorists from antifa working with the police in some cities"
The whole idea of that "Antifa-Roundtable" was to make people believe the strange weak MAGA-line about some
"War torn Portland" "Trans-Antifa-Terrorist that are paid anarchists because the wood..of their..sign handles..is too imported and nice"
The "war torn" LA worked, because media in their 24hr news recycled the same footage over and over and over.. and it was showing 3 burning cars and some mexican flags.
And in portland there are little groups, dressed as pokemon and frogs.. that hold signs demanding human rights.
And from that POV - The whole "Antifa" thing just looks so desperate and weak.
Last time TeamTrump was so desperate it was this:
|
On October 09 2025 06:48 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 06:39 oBlade wrote:On October 09 2025 06:26 Acrofales wrote:On October 09 2025 05:54 oBlade wrote:On October 09 2025 04:51 KT_Elwood wrote:
Some guy in a checkered suit just claimed that
"Portland Police works together with trans-terrorists and antifa, to sacrifice their own citizens"
oBlade! Pack your stuff, save america! The Trans-Antifa-Police of Democrats is eating children! That's Nick Sortor, if you follow the news he was arrested in Portland, he says after being attacked when he was the victim defending himself. The police said no, he was instigating. He said I'll sue you for civil rights violations and the DOJ said they would investigate the police department, and the DA said nevermind he acted in self-defense. The idea he's alleging is leftist rioters and police function as a cartel working together. So, defund the police? Glad to have you onboard! I never said "defund the police." Also, I am not Nick Sortor. Nick Sortor never said "defund the police" that I know, but if he did, by virtue of him not being me, you couldn't say I said that. Also, the allegations are about, and in reference to, Portland specifically. In the US, law enforcement departments operate at municipal city/county, state, and federal levels. Indian reservations have their own laws and law enforcement but sometimes it's like one person per thousand square miles and I've never heard "defund the police" in reference to Indians. At any rate I have no knowledge of Oregon State Police and I know exactly how I feel about federal law enforcement operating in Oregon. In not a single one of those cases have I said or thought to "defund the police." I can't be any clearer so the next time you misunderstand is deliberate. I was just reading between the lines. You appeared to think Sortor had some kind of point that the police was systematically trampling on peoples' constitutional rights (in this case those of peaceful pro-fa protestors, which is a refreshing change, I must say). I have learnt from my time here that the usual response in the US to the police systematically abusing their power is to call for radical police reform, in the form of defunding them entirely and from the ashes build something better. So I just jumped to the end, and welcomed you onboard! But from your vehement reaction, I understand now that you think the police is probably doing an upstanding job. So yay for the antifa police?
You misunderstood the interaction, meaning this is deliberate.
KT_Elwood didn't know the background of what he was watching. Since he's the one who posted the stream, it's likely no one else knew the background either, so in any case I explained it to KT_Elwood.
The world is not divided between "Defund the police" and "The police are always correct." This is called the fallacy of false choice. If that's too verbose, you can think of it as Sophie's Choice, except instead of Sophie's children, it's obnoxiously inserted strawmen arguments.
On October 09 2025 07:21 WombaT wrote:
Why engage Oblade at all?
They’re breathtakingly disingenuous, at all times.
Just ignore them. They’re perpetually full of shit. And not in a political disagreement sense, they’re completely full of it.
For example, the first or perhaps second post made upon return from self exile questioned why he was now concerned about violent rhetoric having previously scorned the very idea of stochastic terrorism, all the time, frequently.
Now he believes in it as a concept, but not wholesale. Right wing violent rhetoric is fine apparently.
There was no "self exile" and in this case I have no idea where you got that idea from or who you confused me with this time.
Violent rhetoric can certainly lead to violence. However, just as an example, opposing immigration by itself is not a dog whistle call to genocide. Then when people take something like the El Paso Walmart shooting and say Blumpf did this because he opposes illegal immigration, and him and anyone like him who opposes illegal immigration is a stochastic terrorist, it's that kind of argumentation that's bullshit. The concept was highly overused and misapplied a few years ago when the term was in vogue.
On October 09 2025 07:21 WombaT wrote:
I’ve said many, many times I’d like more conservative voices to balance things out. Oblade is not remotely that
Correct, I am not a conservative.
On October 09 2025 10:04 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 09:57 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
By design, these government shutdowns are just a symptom of a failed country because politicians can consistently use it as a bargaining chip without any immediate consequences to themselves.
So I don’t know what the appropriate move for any opposition is beyond purposely throwing spanners into the machinery because that is basically the most effective long term play to kneecap the incumbent. Well very true this is extra bad for Trump, because why would a guy who was going to cut government spending with the Department of Government Efficiency that was going to save trillions need the debt ceiling raised? A successful businessman, instead of a lifelong politician that ran on many myths but one of the major ones being he was going to fix all this is an extra bad black mark. Now the cultists won't care the same way they seem to have completely forgotten about the wall and even the little bump about Epstein seems to be mostly forgotten. But I still harbor hope that some will wake up. Mostly unrelated, when Trump is dead and gone and some time has passed, I predict a huge percentages of the people who voted for him don't admit it.
Unfortunately, Congress is incapable of passing cuts. Democrats won't cut anything, and Republicans were supposed to cut in September, but can't/wont, partly because the filibuster means a budget needs 60 votes in the Senate, and we're back to again Democrats can't/won't cut anything. But also partly because Republicans just won't cut anything either. In fact, the promise of September cuts is why at least a couple people went along with passing the budget 6 months ago (Probably Massie or Paul).
+ Show Spoiler +House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries can bluster all he wants about what has to be in the budget, the truth is a budget doesn't need any Democrat votes in the House, only the Senate, and only if this isn't a 5D chess move to nuke the filibuster after a month or 2 of shutdown anyway.
Trump, apparently accepting the reality of this, has pivoted to growth instead of cuts. "With the kind of growth we have now, the debt is very low, relatively speaking. You grow yourself out of that debt." Whether correct or not, again, Congress will never balance the budget or create a surplus via cuts, so the country has no other choice.
The wall is something of a red herring because the standard is muddy. If every inch of the border had a wall but it were 2 feet tall, it would be too short and therefore a failure. If everywhere but 50 miles had a 100 foot wall, it would be incomplete and therefore a failure. The fact you can always frame an originally vague promise in a way that the promise wasn't satisfied is missing the forest for the trees. The OBBA has wall funding for hundreds more miles of barriers. Segments in Arizona and Texas have been approved and started construction. This is in addition to restarting construction of the parts of the wall where materials were ordered in Trump's first term and delivered during Biden's, but Biden canceled construction of (until 2023 or 2024 when he had to try to pretend to care about the issue to hedge for reelection).
So if we skip the trees, what is the forest? Most importantly, the point of the "wall" is to secure the border. That's the meat of what people voted for. FY 2025, which includes the latter days of Biden's term too, is already the most secure the border has been since 1970.
|
oBlade has forgotten the important part: Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall.
|
Taking on new debt (instead of taxing the rich) to pay for government expenses has never stimulated growth enough to generate more tax revenue from the poor, to pay the debt back and avoid more interest payments (to the rich).
It's just a dumb conservative sheme when money is low and they run out of ideas to spare rich people.
|
On October 09 2025 16:55 MJG wrote:oBlade has forgotten the important part: Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall.
As if someone in Mexico owed Trump a favour…
|
On October 09 2025 20:28 KT_Elwood wrote:
Taking on new debt (instead of taxing the rich) to pay for government expenses has never stimulated growth enough to generate more tax revenue from the poor, to pay the debt back and avoid more interest payments (to the rich).
It's just a dumb conservative sheme when money is low and they run out of ideas to spare rich people.
For the math to work, it depends how stifling or attractive the debt is - which is determined by bond rates, which are determined by the market - and also it depends on what the exact spending is.
If you just take on new debt to fund spending as usual (defense and entitlements) and already have to go into debt to do that before even doing anything further, yes that by itself obviously isn't going to stimulate anything. For example, paying someone's social security check and buying a new F-35 with a real dollar versus a dollar you borrowed from the future, I don't think anyone would say there's supposed to be a difference in the terms of the growth effect based on where the dollar was sourced from. In other words, it doesn't matter that the dollar was borrowed in that case. The act of borrowing doesn't magically make growth (that I know of).
But if you had cheaply borrowable mounds of capital you could use to invest in infrastructure, companies, technologies, new developments and families, that might be different. The growth you get could outweigh the cheaply borrowed investment and you could adjust monetary policy to support that goal. Therefore you would want to borrow in order to invest even more than the spendable money you actually had on hand.
Has any (super)power ever taxed the rich or grown their way out of a ~1.5x or higher debt-to-GDP situation, do you know? How did it go?
|
great move by Carney in not making a trade deal with the USA. Let the Supreme Court decide if the reciprocal tariffs are BS. Then, make a deal. Carney has a fully united Canada and a fully united consumer block. It is a consumer block that continues to boycott everything American every chance they get. Guys I know who used to call my Toyota a "rice burner" are now buying Toyota.
Trump and LUtnick say they want the USA to dominate in car making. Welp, if you set out to crush a nation its citizens will probably look for alternatives. There are great cars designed in many countries that are also built in many different countries outside the USA.
|
All money is created from debt.
10% of American housholds hold 70% of the 160 Trillion private Wealth (112 Trillion Dollars)
The total debt is 37 Trillion dollars, or what Top 1% of the Americans own.
Pretty sure there is a solution to this dilemma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/3b54f0f/2147483647/strip/true/crop/5174x3449+0+0/resize/1200x800!/format/webp/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F60%2Fc2%2Fc7803a9c4c429fec00da56de08b3%2Fap20314797962907.jpg)
