| 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 States43450 Posts
On January 14 2026 05:25 justanothertownie wrote: For sure. Regrettable, but better than not enforcing the law at all. "If it's a choice between throwing Americans out of helicopters and some thing that I just made up then the choice is clear." | ||
|
Introvert
United States4884 Posts
On January 14 2026 05:37 KwarK wrote: "If it's a choice between throwing Americans out of helicopters and some thing that I just made up then the choice is clear." I didn't vote for him but that's whatever. I know you think this is an interesting point but of course it really isn't since internal deportations, before Trump, were accountable for only a fraction of the total movement by illegal immigrants. If the number of deportations by Biden is being swamped by the millions of people he allowed in saying "it's never been zero" is missing the point bigly. Biden doubling the number of people removed the interior would be insignificant compared to letting in half as many to start with. The choice between an increase and a decease on net is a real one. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7155 Posts
On January 14 2026 01:58 Jankisa wrote: I don't really see how the Ashley Babbit question is a straw man, it's a very, very simple yes or no proposition. Same goes with the pardons. I like how you again refused to answer the questions and while accusing me of straw manning literally constructed your own ones that don't even make sense. If you want to see some pictures of the event, specifically of a guy who beat a cop with a flag pole who was later pardoned, feel free to read up on it here. It also has a nice video of the mob being about 5 seconds from being able to capture Mitt Romney, a sitting senator. Please ask me any questions, I'm happy to answer any and all of them, because, unlike you, I'm not a raging hypocrite who likes the taste of fascist boots. Again, mine, which you are refusing to answer because (my cooky theory) you might be afraid that your own fascist friends might get a hold of your post history and deem you not worthy: 1. Was killing of Ashley Babbit legitimate? 2. Should Trump have pardoned all the Jan 6th rioters, including the guy who beat the officer of the law with a flagpole? 3. (Bonus round) Is hitting someone with a flagpole while they are lying belly down more of a threat to an officers life then "accelerating" a car while turning the wheel away from the officer? 4. Would a different officer be justified at shooting someone beating his colleague with a flagpole? Of course oblade went quiet after this, because he knows there is no reasonable way he can answer these questions while being consistent with his worldview. Absolute coward. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2623 Posts
Just don't read oBlade. It's a big ol' waste of time. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1048 Posts
I guess, overall, waste of time is relative, we all do (I believe) occasionally learn something, in some crazy situations some of us might even change our minds based on what we hash out here, so I think it's worthwhile. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2623 Posts
On January 14 2026 09:06 Jankisa wrote: I mean, when you think about it, all of it is kind of a waste of time, reading oBlade is just a more aggravating waste of time, I've personally gotten used to it because it's so prevalent with these types, getting them in to a corner that is obvious to anyone except them is fun occasionally. I guess, overall, waste of time is relative, we all do (I believe) occasionally learn something, in some crazy situations some of us might even change our minds based on what we hash out here, so I think it's worthwhile. You're likely to learn something or at least have a provoked thought from reading ChristianS or micronesia or (perhaps) Introvert. The same is not true of oBlade. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5820 Posts
On January 14 2026 01:58 Jankisa wrote: I don't really see how the Ashli Babbit question is a straw man, it's a very, very simple yes or no proposition. Same goes with the pardons. I like how you again refused to answer the questions and while accusing me of straw manning literally constructed your own ones that don't even make sense. If you want to see some pictures of the event, specifically of a guy who beat a cop with a flag pole who was later pardoned, feel free to read up on it here. It also has a nice video of the mob being about 5 seconds from being able to capture Mitt Romney, a sitting senator. Please ask me any questions, I'm happy to answer any and all of them, because, unlike you, I'm not a raging hypocrite who likes the taste of fascist boots. You have brought up a shooting from 5 years ago without explaining why it's okay to shoot Ashli Babbitt but not Nicole Good. You ask me because you are fishing for a contradiction and you mistakenly believe I answer to you morally but forgot to notice it's a volunteered contradiction from you. On January 14 2026 01:58 Jankisa wrote: 1. Was killing of Ashli Babbit legitimate? 2. Should Trump have pardoned all the Jan 6th rioters, including the guy who beat the officer of the law with a flagpole? 3. (Bonus round) Is hitting someone with a flagpole while they are lying belly down more of a threat to an officers life then "accelerating" a car while turning the wheel away from the officer? Here's very briefly what I believe. If you obstruct or attack police, they will stop you from doing that, and they will arrest you. As the police, they have the right to use force in doing so. In some cases, they can use deadly force. I personally said a very narrow thing about Nicole Good, I didn't say officers must shoot leftists, or must shoot people in cars, or even must shoot in this case, or even that I would shoot in that case, I would hope in the same place I could have been able to handle it in a way that would have avoided what happened. You go through all this and think yeah this is just a facade, what's really going on is he's saying police should shoot leftists who look at them wrong. So if it's okay to shoot leftists it's okay to shoot rightists, right? This is a primitive thought process. That is the only reason to bring up the Ashli Babbitt case which had both no car and no other deadly weapon. There is nothing analogous about the case that makes it a point of reference for the Good case. I can show you 10 more bodycams of police magdumping or not magdumping into actual cars in various situations. It's fascinating. "If he thinks an officer was justified in responding to a car with deadly force, boy have I got a trap for him: I'll ask him if he thinks an officer was justified in responding to NO CAR with deadly force!" The only point in common is both people were motivated by political underpinnings and Ashli Babbitt is probably the only person you know who was shot and right-leaning. They are both regrettable, avoidable if different choices had been made, and I will say the exact same thing I said in reference to Nicole Good and other cases, about Ashli Babbitt, especially because both are women: I just think about the people in her circle and around the world who fed her poison and put her up to it, or who weren't strong enough to talk her down from it, or the cowards watching and even cheering on from the sidelines using her like a pawn in a giant propaganda war. What you will never get me to do is cheer "Yes Byrd blast that MAGAT!" for the same reason you will never see me cheer "Yes Ross blast that libtard!" to begin with because I don't believe that either. That's the consistency. Pardons should have been applied in more detail. On January 14 2026 01:58 Jankisa wrote: 4. Would a different officer be justified at shooting someone beating his colleague with a flagpole? Probably. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28733 Posts
If someone thinks that the shooting of Renee Good was justified because it gives a clear message to people that obstructing ICE in their work might result in getting you killed and the work ICE is doing is dirty but important and people must be discouraged from any sort of disruptive protesting, that's not necessarily dishonest, nor stupid. I'd argue this point of view is in conflict with certain rights we've come to associate with liberal western democracies, but oh well, not expecting MAGA to be in favor of those rights anyway. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1950 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28733 Posts
On January 13 2026 23:21 pmh wrote: "According to data examined by Civiqs, 42 percent support getting rid of the agency while 50 percent oppose doing so, a split of just 8 points." 8 points is quiet a big gap in politics. The us public still does not support getting rid of ice. Its the one single thing that more then halve the nation is satisfied with to some extend when it comes to this administration. If you want to change something you make sure you win the election. People in the us still have this option,simply winning the election. Then they can stop the small incremental steps in congress. Instead of protesting at every individual step which they already admitted wont succeed. 8 points might look like a big gap in politics, but it's much less of a big gap when it was a 36 point gap 1 year ago. Additionally, a poll from yesterday (not from Civiqs) showed 46-43 in favor of abolishing. 46-43 here overview of how attitudes have evolved over time here Additionally, if you ask different questions, like 'are you satisfied with how ICE is enforcing immigration laws', then 57% say they aren't. There's a group of people that is unhappy with ICE but not sufficiently unhappy to state that they want the organization abolished. This seems intuitively true to me - many people are in favor of deporting violent criminals/ drug trafficers who don't have a legal right to stay, without being fond of killing protesters, raiding homes with children or threatening pastors with violence for then to back down because the pastor is white and it's just not fun in the same way. ICE existed during Biden and Obama years too - but the abolish ICE movement had virtually no traction then, because they didn't come off as violent, racist, untrained thugs in the same way they do with the current administration. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17598 Posts
On January 14 2026 17:19 Broetchenholer wrote: Question from someone from out of town. If someone were to initiate a trial of the ice agent shooting good, who would that be? The doj? Has anybody the authority to say, I will investigate this guy for murder? Several DOJ members (6 prosecutors to be exact) have quit in protest because apparently the investigation and prosecution of Rene Good shooting is being blocked by the White House. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22040 Posts
ICE are federal agents and the federal government can investigate them. But logically Trump doesn't want his SS troops prosecuted for shooting the right people. And we can assume they shooting the right people because Trump got very upset at Iran for shooting what he called the wrong people. So there are right people to shoot, US citizens protesting his regime, and wrong people, Iranians protesting their regime. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1950 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43450 Posts
On January 14 2026 19:35 Broetchenholer wrote: So the body to investigate federal crimes is not independent from the federal government? Is this a case of "we never anticipated the government to have no morals" or is this by design? If the FBI goes to the house of Nancy pelosi and kills her husband with a hammer and the federal government forbids the "investigation", their is no way of dealing with that besides a political one? And, of course, 'A Christmas Carol'. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7310 Posts
On January 14 2026 19:05 Gorsameth wrote: Yes the fact senior lawyers of the DOJ civil rights department are resigning over a refusal to investigate the agent who shot Good shows they could, but won't. ICE are federal agents and the federal government can investigate them. But logically Trump doesn't want his SS troops prosecuted for shooting the right people. And we can assume they shooting the right people because Trump got very upset at Iran for shooting what he called the wrong people. So there are right people to shoot, US citizens protesting his regime, and wrong people, Iranians protesting their regime. They need to stop resigning. A lackey will take their place and just do the governments bidding and we will be further down the slide towards authortarianism. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1048 Posts
The reason why these 2 cases are analog is because in one a woman was repeatedly given clear orders to stop trying to break through a barrier with the mob, inside of a federal building that she and the mob broken in after they chanted to hang the vice president, she ignored them, got through the barrier and was shot. In the other, the woman was being yelled 2 different sets of orders by officers, while sitting in a car which wasn't blocking anyone including their cars on her street, the officers who were clearly breaking protocol and acting in a threatening manner to her, despite this she made an effort to try to follow at least one set of orders and also made an effort (which is very clearly seen from the video) to turn her wheel to the side opposite to the one she would if she was trying to run the guy over. In both cases a woman was shoot. One of the shootings was clearly justified and there was no controversy around it until the MAGA cult made this woman a martyr, the other shooting should at the very minimum be investigated, but, unfortunately, due to lawless nature of this administration they are blocking the investigation and DOJ staff are quitting in protest for not being allowed to investigate it while ICE agents are illegally removing evidence from the officer's home just in case someone opens an investigation. As someone who likes to tout the rules and laws, you should be calling for an open and transparent investigation instead of pretending like this is a open and shut case, which it very clearly isn't. Since you are not, and just like in the case where you have issues being clear in your answers if an officer is justified in using his gun to protect a fellow officer who is face down being attacked by a metal rod, or how you can't just say that the use of force against Babbit is justified, you are still a raging hypocrite. Also, the poison in one case was distributed by the President and his ilk, "the poison" in the other case is a person who doesn't like her friends and neighbors being assaulted and taken away by masked men, one is motivated by lies and the other by empathy, but I guess that is not something you'd be able to understand. | ||
|
mcxds
Germany20 Posts
On January 14 2026 17:19 Broetchenholer wrote: Question from someone from out of town. If someone were to initiate a trial of the ice agent shooting good, who would that be? The doj? Has anybody the authority to say, I will investigate this guy for murder? According to former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner state law enforcement authorities can also investigate the ICE Shooting. The problem is that federal prosecutors are not obligated to let them take part in the investigation. So they would have to go to court to be able to question witnesses or get access to evidence. According to Kirschner it would not be a hopeless case because federal law enforcement would have a hard time arguing that they are conducting a thorough investigation after almost all their heads came out publicly pre-clearing the shooter of any wrongdoing. Brian Tyler Cohen conducted an interview with Kirschner where he explains this in detail: | ||
|
KwarK
United States43450 Posts
On January 14 2026 20:10 Sadist wrote: They need to stop resigning. A lackey will take their place and just do the governments bidding and we will be further down the slide towards authortarianism. Might as well argue concentration camp guards shouldn’t resign because they’ll just be replaced by men with better marksmanship. At a certain point all you can do is refuse to participate. | ||
|
pmh
1398 Posts
They can have an investigation which will clear the officer. The officer would probably be cleared in the netherlands as well. They might admit a few things went wrong but overall they would not convict him on major charges. There is nothing to gain here for either side. More people are not satisfied with ice then maybe ever before but overall its still not a winning subject for the democrats. Having this whole year be about extreme polarization around ice is probably the best chance for the republicans. Still not great but better then any other possible scenario and angle. The republicans dont fear the protests they fear the election. If the choice is between a bad ice and the perception of bad immigrants and protestors then most people will probably still choose the bad ice. This is the choice the republicans want the election to be about. Because it is the one battle they might win. https://www.thedailybeast.com/personal-details-of-thousands-of-border-patrol-and-ice-goons-allegedly-leaked-in-huge-data-breach/ This happend yesterday accidently. How can they not have the leaker with how much internal surveilance there is. https://www.commondreams.org/news/ro-khanna-ice-minneapolis Attacking a citizen for doing something wrong almost never works in politics. Most people will hate politicians for doing something wrong but citizens are different. They are more relatable for the public even if they do something wrong. Maybe the democrats dont want to win the midterms. Then people would expect them to impeach Trump which is the last thing they want to do. The democrats are very activist when not in power and very conservative once in power. In many ways things will be much easier if the democrats lose the midterms and give the administration the full 4 years. Having the democrats win the house and senate and then do nothing would be quiet problematic. I can see why it would be preferable for the democrats to lose the midterms. So hereby i am changing my prediction for the midterms. I think the republicans will win (as in:keep sufficient control of the house and senate to not have those institutions block the administration). | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Rain Dota 2 2760Horang2 2571Shuttle 1808Soma  877Mini 782BeSt 423ZerO 405Light  397Snow 386Rush 296[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing1974 B2W.Neo1029 hiko562 crisheroes271 XaKoH  219Hui .197 Sick137 QueenE106 ArmadaUGS66 KnowMe24 ZerO(Twitch)15 |
|
The PondCast
OSC
Jumy vs sebesdes
Nicoract vs GgMaChine
ReBellioN vs MaNa
Lemon vs TriGGeR
Gerald vs Cure
Creator vs SHIN
OSC
All Star Teams
INnoVation vs soO
Serral vs herO
Cure vs Solar
sOs vs Scarlett
Classic vs Clem
Reynor vs Maru
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
All Star Teams
MMA vs DongRaeGu
Rogue vs Oliveira
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZHN4smAcjR4/maxresdefault.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://assets2.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2026/01/10/223495f3-55c9-434a-a428-5b96743ccf93/thumbnail/1200x630/23bae2965245291093b680cdd9f00068/e73f8c0d-9d22-4cc3-b7ae-615f4a971518-adamjohnson2.jpg)
