EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5414
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3279 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17850 Posts
On January 06 2026 21:47 KwarK wrote: This is the War Games movie premise. They test their very well trained staff by giving them a fake launch order. Many of the humans involved correctly identify that it doesn’t make sense for there to be a full nuclear exchange on this random day with no flashpoint conflicts and won’t launch without more info. This is seen as a failure in the system and so they want to pass even more control to a computer program. But in any case it’s an overcomplication. The British never needed this. If British nuclear subs on patrol can’t communicate with command for an extended period and BBC radio is unavailable they’re trained to conclude London was destroyed and nuke Moscow. You don’t need a dead hand system, second strike subs are already equipped for fully autonomous launch should the commander judge it necessary. Don't subs also require launch codes from the HQ though? You know, to avoid rogue captain causing another Cuban Missile Crisis or something. | ||
|
Billyboy
2473 Posts
This is a terrible thing for society and make sense why it feels like the other side is living in a different world, because they are. We are all consuming media from very specific bubbles that are basically curated to hit our hot buttons. I mean even the literal “following” of “influencers” is crazy. I remember when being cool was thought of as those people who did their own thing. Now it is who can copy the popular guy in the internet the best. World is getting more fucked up and internet has made us much easier to manipulate, hell most people want and even pay to be “influenced”. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22646 Posts
On January 07 2026 00:17 Manit0u wrote: I don't believe they do no, because that would defeat their purpose as a retaliatory measure in case a surprise attack took out HQ.Don't subs also require launch codes from the HQ though? You know, to avoid rogue captain causing another Cuban Missile Crisis or something. The codes for a sub are to authenticate a launch order as being genuine, not to unlock the missiles. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
On January 07 2026 00:17 Manit0u wrote: Don't subs also require launch codes from the HQ though? You know, to avoid rogue captain causing another Cuban Missile Crisis or something. Not the British ones as far as I recall. Two sets of codes secured by two officers on board. Nuclear missile submarines are a retaliation weapon and London is far too close to Russia to survive any decapitation first strike. Same with the Soviet ones if I recall correctly the story of Arkhipov who was the dissenting officer on a Soviet nuclear sub. The subs have to be autonomous to be a credible threat. That’s why robot dead hands have always been silly science fiction. The robots rely on people and the human version already exists. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10961 Posts
On January 07 2026 00:21 Billyboy wrote: It is a very strange time in the world when there are left wing and right wing reporters. It feels near impossible to apolitical news and analysis. This is a terrible thing for society and make sense why it feels like the other side is living in a different world, because they are. We are all consuming media from very specific bubbles that are basically curated to hit our hot buttons. I mean even the literal “following” of “influencers” is crazy. I remember when being cool was thought of as those people who did their own thing. Now it is who can copy the popular guy in the internet the best. World is getting more fucked up and internet has made us much easier to manipulate, hell most people want and even pay to be “influenced”. I'm so happy to live in a smallish country. Pretty sure Youtube is still not 100% on if i'm english, german, french or italian speaking or/and their adds are not targeted enough because the market just isn't that big. Not that there aren't (major) issues with money in politics but due to the small size people of all political strains are forced to mingle very often, so demonizing the others is much harder and if one group goes over the top with its rethoric, it's usually not paying off. | ||
|
Yurie
12175 Posts
On January 07 2026 00:21 Billyboy wrote: It is a very strange time in the world when there are left wing and right wing reporters. It feels near impossible to apolitical news and analysis. This is a terrible thing for society and make sense why it feels like the other side is living in a different world, because they are. We are all consuming media from very specific bubbles that are basically curated to hit our hot buttons. I mean even the literal “following” of “influencers” is crazy. I remember when being cool was thought of as those people who did their own thing. Now it is who can copy the popular guy in the internet the best. World is getting more fucked up and internet has made us much easier to manipulate, hell most people want and even pay to be “influenced”. Part of the idea in keeping BBC, NPR and similar outlets financed is to have a news outlet not dependent on a specific political party or angle. If you get a dictatorship it instantly fails but outside that scenario you have a news outlet with a clear mission statement where people get fired for breaking it. Usually that statement is towards facts over political agendas or readership. | ||
|
Billyboy
2473 Posts
On January 07 2026 01:16 Yurie wrote: Part of the idea in keeping BBC, NPR and similar outlets financed is to have a news outlet not dependent on a specific political party or angle. If you get a dictatorship it instantly fails but outside that scenario you have a news outlet with a clear mission statement where people get fired for breaking it. Usually that statement is towards facts over political agendas or readership. I read from both of those, as well as the CBC (Canadian BBC). But those get branded and left wing by the right or right wing by the far left. I’ve also heard the term “legacy media” a bunch and that it can’t be trusted by people from both sides. There are some news that I believe is still unbiased, but the vast majority of people do not. They believe their news is unbiased, even if it is described as right or left wing. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
We love America. And we make no apologies for saying so. Our foundational values of liberty, equality and the rule of law make us the last best hope on Earth. There's an awful lot going on in that principle. There's the classic right wing persecution complex, someone somewhere is demanding that they apologize for loving America too much. But they're not afraid to stand tall and proud in America and declare that they love America, no matter the cost that they might have to pay for that deeply controversial and shameful opinion. Such bravery has not been seen since the Christians refusing to renounce their faith when being crucified in Roman times. There's the declaration of a counterfactual history as pure fact. The foundational values of America including liberty and equality? Foundational? Like in the foundational document? The one that said that slaves counted as three fifths of a person? That foundation? The one drafted by the slaveowners? And the last best hope on Earth? Because nobody else has freedom. America is exceptional, and is therefore allowed to do exceptional things. Because if America fails then all hope for Earth has failed. If you're critical of America then you're against hope. Their chief news anchor Tony Dokoupil explained the shift to viewers before his first news broadcast. On too many stories, the press has missed the story. And it’s not just us. It’s all of legacy media. Because we’ve taken into account the perspective of advocates, and not the average American. Or, we put too much weight in the analysis of academics, or elites, and not enough on you. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24376 Posts
On January 07 2026 01:16 Yurie wrote: Part of the idea in keeping BBC, NPR and similar outlets financed is to have a news outlet not dependent on a specific political party or angle. If you get a dictatorship it instantly fails but outside that scenario you have a news outlet with a clear mission statement where people get fired for breaking it. Usually that statement is towards facts over political agendas or readership. The notion of unbiased reporting is pretty obviously stupid. Which reporting outlet takes an unbiased position on capitalism and reports from that foundation for example? Here's the BBC deciding an obvious kidnapping can't be called a kidnapping. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
The fact of what happened is that Maduro was forcibly taken. The opinion of what happened was that it was either the legal capture of a criminal (per the state department) or a kidnapping (per the Venezuelan government). They can use loaded language to report what someone else has said. They give an example here but they do it a lot. It came up routinely with Gaza where pro Israelis would complain whenever the BBC reported what the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry stated. But in those instances the BBC always reported it as a quote rather than the findings of their own independent investigations. Seized is entirely appropriate for BBC reporting. The BBC has not had a legal team weigh the legal merits of the seizure and the issues over Maduro’s sovereignty after an election that the international community believes that he lost. They do not have an authoritative view on the legality informed by their own independent investigative journalism. Captured is what you do to a criminal. Kidnapped is what a criminal does to an innocent. Both would be editorializing. I searched “bbc” and “maduro” and opened the first article that came up. It included multiple references to it being illegal. Conducting a military operation in Venezuela and whisking Maduro out of the country under the cover of darkness was "completely illegal under international law," said Luke Moffett, a professor at the Queen's University Belfast School of Law. They’re not refusing to publish the opinion that it was illegal, they’re refusing to editorialize. Anyone curious can perform the exact same experiment I did if they believe the BBC is unwilling to give column inches to the argument that it is illegal. 'Large part' of Maduro's security team and 'innocent civilians' killed in US operation - defence minister published at 09:55 4 January 09:55 4 January BREAKING More now from Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino, who's been speaking on television. He says Venezuelan armed forces "firmly rejects the cowardly kidnapping" of Maduro and his wife after the "cold-blooded murder of a large part of his security team, soldiers and innocent civilians". Earlier, the New York Times reported that an apartment complex was hit and that there have been at least 40 casualties - although it's not clear whether these are civilians or military targets. The BBC has not been able to independently verify these reports. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
2473 Posts
On January 07 2026 01:50 KwarK wrote: On a somewhat related note, the capitulation of CBS and its shift to becoming state propaganda is equal parts depressing and unintentional satire. It has declared that from now on it will be reporting the news according to five guiding principles including: There's an awful lot going on in that principle. There's the classic right wing persecution complex, someone somewhere is demanding that they apologize for loving America too much. But they're not afraid to stand tall and proud in America and declare that they love America, no matter the cost that they might have to pay for that deeply controversial and shameful opinion. Such bravery has not been seen since the Christians refusing to renounce their faith when being crucified in Roman times. There's the declaration of a counterfactual history as pure fact. The foundational values of America including liberty and equality? Foundational? Like in the foundational document? The one that said that slaves counted as three fifths of a person? That foundation? The one drafted by the slaveowners? And the last best hope on Earth? Because nobody else has freedom. America is exceptional, and is therefore allowed to do exceptional things. Because if America fails then all hope for Earth has failed. If you're critical of America then you're against hope. Their chief news anchor Tony Dokoupil explained the shift to viewers before his first news broadcast. That last quote was what sent me down that posts path. You basically have a News organization saying we are done reporting the facts and going to start to report feelings based on what will give us the highest ratings. It’s populist slop. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24376 Posts
On January 07 2026 02:21 KwarK wrote: + Show Spoiler + For context on that, BBC has always been instructed to avoid editorializing in reporting. That confuses the shit out of people like GH. The fact of what happened is that Maduro was forcibly taken. The opinion of what happened was that it was either the legal capture of a criminal (per the state department) or a kidnapping (per the Venezuelan government). They can use loaded language to report what someone else has said. They give an example here but they do it a lot. It came up routinely with Gaza where pro Israelis would complain whenever the BBC reported what the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry stated. But in those instances the BBC always reported it as a quote rather than the findings of their own independent investigations. Seized is entirely appropriate for BBC reporting. The BBC has not had a legal team weigh the legal merits of the seizure and the issues over Maduro’s sovereignty after an election that the international community believes that he lost. + Show Spoiler + I searched “bbc” and “maduro” and opened the first article that came up. It included multiple references to it being illegal. Conducting a military operation in Venezuela and whisking Maduro out of the country under the cover of darkness was "completely illegal under international law," said Luke Moffett, a professor at the Queen's University Belfast School of Law. They’re not refusing to publish the opinion that it was illegal, they’re refusing to editorialize. Anyone curious can perform the exact same experiment I did if they believe the BBC is unwilling to give column inches to the argument that it is illegal.Fair point, though headlines/stories like this undermine this "non-editorializing" idea Spies, drones and blowtorches: How the US captured Maduro Of course, the point about unbiased reporting being obviously stupid stands regardless. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6540 Posts
On January 07 2026 01:50 KwarK wrote: There's the declaration of a counterfactual history as pure fact. The foundational values of America including liberty and equality? Foundational? Like in the foundational document? The one that said that slaves counted as three fifths of a person? That foundation? The one drafted by the slaveowners? Slaveowners were not the ones who didn't want to count slaves the same as freemen for the purposes of proportional representation. The Atlantic Slave Trade was outlawed as soon as the moratorium on legislation against it that was built into the Constitution ended. Why such a moratorium to begin with? The framers knew slavery was on its way out but had to guarantee the slave trade for 20 years as part of the deal to get a federal US government off the ground at all. What none of them managed successfully to both predict and address in the nascent country was that the conditions of US geography and the US economy were so different to Europe that domestic slavery by itself would take off so much and become a self-sustaining institution before domestic slavery could be banned also. Later, guided by the preservation and extension of those exact foundational values of liberty and equality, the country fought a war with itself. The result of which was to decide the issue of slavery domestically also. The liberty and equality side won that war, and the foundational document was thus amended to reflect what was achieved by that bloodshed. The good guys already won that. We haven't teleported from 18th century shit to now. The history of the US is not just good guys winning, it's better and better guys winning. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
On January 07 2026 03:19 oBlade wrote: Slaveowners were not the ones who didn't want to count slaves the same as freemen for the purposes of proportional representation. I know this. The slaveowners insisted that the interests of the slaves should be represented fully, by the slaveowners, on behalf of the slaves, voting to keep slavery. That's not the kind of gotcha that helps your cause buddy. As for the rest of your drivel about how the US got better, okay, sure, but that's not what CBS was asserting. CBS was asserting that the US was founded on liberty and equality. The founding document not only enshrines slavery, it states that slaves are constitutionally not equal to free men. What CBS is asserting is simply untrue. On every possible level. It's very, very simple. If your founding document states that a slave is worth 3/5ths of a free man then you don't get to say that you were founded on a principle of liberty and equality. That's a rule. It's not my opinion. It just is. | ||
|
hitthat
Poland2349 Posts
On January 07 2026 03:19 oBlade wrote: Later, guided by the preservation and extension of those exact foundational values of liberty and equality, the country fought a war with itself. See, this is how historical perception in countries differ. US tradition calls it American Civil War. In my country it was never called "Civil War" but rather "American Secessionist War" (Amerykańska Wojna Secesyjna), and recognized as conflict between two suvereign states, as US constitution upheld the right of "rebelious" states to leave before it was taken after Union's victory. The states were never fought about changing regime, they fought the war of secession/unification. In a way, it was treating USA as a heir of the country that abolished slavery, not as a heir of the slavers who created the Confederacy. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
On January 06 2026 23:35 KwarK wrote: My understanding is that it’s another project veritas style hit. Some twitter “journalist” showed up at an after school daycare during school hours and demanded to inspect the children. Conservative media saw it taking off and ran with it. He did it during the winter break so he knew he wouldn't find anyone. He was also informed by staffers in the minnesota GOP which daycares were under investigation. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On January 06 2026 23:35 KwarK wrote: My understanding is that it’s another project veritas style hit. Some twitter “journalist” showed up at an after school daycare during school hours and demanded to inspect the children. Conservative media saw it taking off and ran with it. In one case, he showed up to a daycare when it was closed- which he used as evidence that the day care didn't operate as a daycare. I think that was the one that had a series of violations for overcrowding and lack of supervision. So hardly a shell company for fraud, but on the government's watchlist and working to correct their errors. Other daycares, Nick Shirley showed up to and could not get into the locked daycare, because of course you cannot as a stranger show up and demand entrance into a daycare!!! Even if it was just you and your roving camera and a friendly old man (who happens to work for a Republican advocacy group.) But what Nick's video didn't show and the security footage did, is that he was showing up to daycare with eight men, some of whom were masked. Um. If they had been let into the daycare, that should have been a reason to shut them down. When questioned by real journalists a number of the daycares who had seen Nick arrive and refused to answer the door expressed that at the time they were concerned that Nick's masked crew were part of a ICE operation... Hide yo kids, hide yo wife, and hide yo husband too... When confronted by actual journalists, Nick revealed he thought all daycares ought to employ receptionists where you can just waltz up and open an unsecure door and get checked in. So he's a moron. For some of his past 'journalist' work, this clown went to Ukraine was shown the graves at Bucha, and he claimed to have gone to eastern Ukraine for his journalism. Instead, he filmed a bunch of wealthy vehicles in Kyiv while aping for the camera with the text "POV: your (sic) in Ukraine and you realize where your taxes are going" So he's a MAGA propagandist pushing Russian propaganda. And when confronted by someone doing actual work in Ukraine, he revealed that by eastern Ukraine he meant "Bucha is east of Ukraine, right?" And when confronted on the falsity of his video, he first cowardly back down and said it was "satire" and "is there anything wrong with satire?" Which is a fun deflection from the actual accusation of lies about US support in Ukraine. However, it's Schrödinger's satire because when pressed on the lies of the video, it becomes satire (satirizing what?) but in the next breath, US taxpayers have the right to know where their money is going. So he does stand by the lies of the video and it wasn't satire, except at the same time he doesn't and it is. tldr Nick Shirley is a cowardly propagandist, but the MAGA-verse received their latest script/patch and ran with it. And Walz not getting a lot of support from many fronts and after a long career, I guess didn't want to fight the MAGA propaganda machine as the same time as running for governor and stepped down. | ||
| ||
