|
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 January 23 2026 11:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 11:52 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:45 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:40 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:30 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:28 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:26 LightSpectra wrote:On January 23 2026 11:25 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:22 LightSpectra wrote:
I asked before and you didn't answer, do all politicians have this sort of Papal infallibility against lying because there's always some deeper spiritual truth behind what they actually say, or is it just Trump? All politicians lie. That's not what I asked. Are you a moron for trying to hold any politician accountable for lies, or is it just Trump? Depends on what lies then. I also think it depends if the lie deserve much attention at all. You constantly insist Trump’s lies are the truth. He’ll declare victory and state exactly what he won. You’ll show up here and congratulate Trump on his victory. Someone will point out that he didn’t actually get those things at which point you’ll explain that Trump’s victory is in no way impacted by the non existence of the things that he used as the basis of his declaration of victory and that anybody expecting the things that he uses as the basis of his declaration of victory is silly for believing in them but you’re smart and that’s why you know that they’re not real but the victory is still real even though there’s no evidence for it. I didn't insist it's true. I said I don't take it literally. Only when called out. You declare he won and then when challenged you declare that while he won the criteria by which that victory could be measured aren’t literal. Yes because a closer to peace deal is a win. US getting TSM expanded capacity is a win. I just don't quantify the win needing to match Trump's timeline or numbers. So if Trump says “I’m going to lower the deficit by $1T, anything less than that is a failure” and then Trump declares victory on the basis of increasing the deficit by $3T then you could happily cheer for Trump’s victory while insisting that you’re measuring it by non literal criteria. Trump says he’ll literally end the war but you declare the effort a success based on a table. When pushed you can’t provide the table. It is not a literal table, it is the concept of a table. But you stand by the analysis.
I think US deficit lower by $1T would be a win. Increasing by $3T would be a loss.
Doesn't matter what Trump says, does it?
See, it's that simple.
Now apply this simple logic to his gold card visa, adding billions isn't bad, is it?
Crime having massive drop off, isn't bad, is it?
US having expanded TSM capacity, isn't bad, is it?
|
United States43505 Posts
On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext?
The brief was for a dome that covers the entire United States against ICBMs with MIRVs, to be operational by 2028.
|
On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext?
This article doesn't cite a single expert or outside source. It also heavily emphasizes the need for allies to contribute, which would suggest going around threatening their sovereignty every five seconds is a bad idea.
|
On January 23 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:The brief was for a dome that covers the entire United States against ICBMs with MIRVs, to be operational by 2028.
How do you think golden dome works?
|
On January 23 2026 12:01 LightSpectra wrote:This article doesn't cite a single expert or outside source. It also heavily emphasizes the need for allies to contribute, which would suggest going around threatening their sovereignty every five seconds is a bad idea.
Ok sure.
Space systems expert explains technical challenges of building a 'Golden Dome' | Hub https://share.google/Ns3n3uACLOuDqMbdd
Challenges, like any other major program then.
I think we will reach to a stage where US will get to the strongest missile defense system ever and countries that are crying about US threats now will want to get in it.
Unless they start buying arms from China and russia while transitioning out from US.
That's the political reality to it.
|
United States43505 Posts
On January 23 2026 12:01 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext? The brief was for a dome that covers the entire United States against ICBMs with MIRVs, to be operational by 2028. How do you think golden dome works?
Well, first things first, it's important to understand that it is a multilayered system. Let's get that out of the way.
|
Its also a lie but thats okay beacuse all politicians lie, and beacuse he knows that all politicians lie he can't be lied to.
|
On January 23 2026 12:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 12:01 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext? The brief was for a dome that covers the entire United States against ICBMs with MIRVs, to be operational by 2028. How do you think golden dome works? Well, first things first, it's important to understand that it is a multilayered system. Let's get that out of the way.
Ok so it's also important to understand then this will be a multi phase deployment then.
And that China is already working on space competition as key sector and the US can't lag behind like europe?
|
On January 23 2026 12:12 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 12:06 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 12:01 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext? The brief was for a dome that covers the entire United States against ICBMs with MIRVs, to be operational by 2028. How do you think golden dome works? Well, first things first, it's important to understand that it is a multilayered system. Let's get that out of the way. Ok so it's also important to understand then this will be a multi phase deployment then. And that China is already working on space competition as key sector and the US can't lag behind like europe?
What phase does it start doing what its suppose to do and when will we know if its real or just a lie?
|
United States43505 Posts
On January 23 2026 12:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 12:12 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 12:06 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 12:01 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext? The brief was for a dome that covers the entire United States against ICBMs with MIRVs, to be operational by 2028. How do you think golden dome works? Well, first things first, it's important to understand that it is a multilayered system. Let's get that out of the way. Ok so it's also important to understand then this will be a multi phase deployment then. And that China is already working on space competition as key sector and the US can't lag behind like europe? What phase does it start doing what it’s suppose to do and when will we know if it’s real or just a lie?
“what it’s supposed to do” isn’t a reasonable thing to judge it by. I can’t believe you’d be so credulous as to buy into things literally doing what they are claimed to do.
|
On January 23 2026 12:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 12:12 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 12:06 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 12:01 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext? The brief was for a dome that covers the entire United States against ICBMs with MIRVs, to be operational by 2028. How do you think golden dome works? Well, first things first, it's important to understand that it is a multilayered system. Let's get that out of the way. Ok so it's also important to understand then this will be a multi phase deployment then. And that China is already working on space competition as key sector and the US can't lag behind like europe? What phase does it start doing what its suppose to do and when will we know if its real or just a lie?
You'd know when it run it's course.
|
On January 23 2026 12:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 12:14 Sermokala wrote:On January 23 2026 12:12 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 12:06 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 12:01 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:58 ETisME wrote:There are actual experts that say otherwise. Golden Dome looks technically doable, but brings strategic complications | The Strategist https://share.google/qjyaIHblqPHzrbiJrNext? The brief was for a dome that covers the entire United States against ICBMs with MIRVs, to be operational by 2028. How do you think golden dome works? Well, first things first, it's important to understand that it is a multilayered system. Let's get that out of the way. Ok so it's also important to understand then this will be a multi phase deployment then. And that China is already working on space competition as key sector and the US can't lag behind like europe? What phase does it start doing what it’s suppose to do and when will we know if it’s real or just a lie? “what it’s supposed to do” isn’t a reasonable thing to judge it by. I can’t believe you’d be so credulous as to buy into things literally doing what they are claimed to do.
You can send a request to russia and China launching ICBM and test it when it's all done.
|
On January 23 2026 11:52 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 11:45 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:40 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:30 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:28 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:26 LightSpectra wrote:On January 23 2026 11:25 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:22 LightSpectra wrote:
I asked before and you didn't answer, do all politicians have this sort of Papal infallibility against lying because there's always some deeper spiritual truth behind what they actually say, or is it just Trump? All politicians lie. That's not what I asked. Are you a moron for trying to hold any politician accountable for lies, or is it just Trump? Depends on what lies then. I also think it depends if the lie deserve much attention at all. You constantly insist Trump’s lies are the truth. He’ll declare victory and state exactly what he won. You’ll show up here and congratulate Trump on his victory. Someone will point out that he didn’t actually get those things at which point you’ll explain that Trump’s victory is in no way impacted by the non existence of the things that he used as the basis of his declaration of victory and that anybody expecting the things that he uses as the basis of his declaration of victory is silly for believing in them but you’re smart and that’s why you know that they’re not real but the victory is still real even though there’s no evidence for it. I didn't insist it's true. I said I don't take it literally. Only when called out. You declare he won and then when challenged you declare that while he won the criteria by which that victory could be measured aren’t literal. Yes because a closer to peace deal is a win. US getting TSM expanded capacity is a win. I just don't quantify the win needing to match Trump's timeline or numbers.
I really need this "closer to a peace deal" thing explained. Like timewise we are of course closer to a peace deal now then we were last year, hell we will be even closer tomorrow and the day after that. That was inevitable regardless of Trump or Biden.
What we do know is that more people from both sides are dying every day then ever before in this war. And I have real trouble calling that a win.
|
United States43505 Posts
On January 23 2026 12:40 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 11:52 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:45 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:40 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:30 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:28 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:26 LightSpectra wrote:On January 23 2026 11:25 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:22 LightSpectra wrote:
I asked before and you didn't answer, do all politicians have this sort of Papal infallibility against lying because there's always some deeper spiritual truth behind what they actually say, or is it just Trump? All politicians lie. That's not what I asked. Are you a moron for trying to hold any politician accountable for lies, or is it just Trump? Depends on what lies then. I also think it depends if the lie deserve much attention at all. You constantly insist Trump’s lies are the truth. He’ll declare victory and state exactly what he won. You’ll show up here and congratulate Trump on his victory. Someone will point out that he didn’t actually get those things at which point you’ll explain that Trump’s victory is in no way impacted by the non existence of the things that he used as the basis of his declaration of victory and that anybody expecting the things that he uses as the basis of his declaration of victory is silly for believing in them but you’re smart and that’s why you know that they’re not real but the victory is still real even though there’s no evidence for it. I didn't insist it's true. I said I don't take it literally. Only when called out. You declare he won and then when challenged you declare that while he won the criteria by which that victory could be measured aren’t literal. Yes because a closer to peace deal is a win. US getting TSM expanded capacity is a win. I just don't quantify the win needing to match Trump's timeline or numbers. I really need this "closer to a peace deal" thing explained. Like timewise we are of course closer to a peace deal now then we were last year, hell we will be even closer tomorrow and the day after that. That was inevitable regardless of Trump or Biden. What we do know is that more people from both sides are dying every day then ever before in this war. And I have real trouble calling that a win.
Did you not hear about the table?
|
Canada11398 Posts
Has the glorious Trump even demonstrated much capacity for abstract thinking? Why shouldn't we think his promises are literal? What is the most complex book you suppose mastermind Trump has read? "Lock her up" in the metaphorical sense? No, that was literal. He is just lousy at follow through. Or as Kwark has pointed out, when he said build a wall, that was a literal wall, not a metaphorical one.
There are a variety of reasons why he doesn't do what what he says, but rarely as a 5D Chess.
He often falls down at the policy level and so can't follow through.
He lacks the patience and fortitude to see anything long term through to the end- hence he has not gone back to the wall in the second term despite having a cabinet full of lackeys and a do-nothing Congress. And he's gotten distracted from his peace in Ukraine after farting around for a year and his now playing imperial warlord instead.
He throws it out, others have to react to it.
That's literally how it works.
But this is often why he doesn't go through with everything. He floats ideas like trial balloons and if they are popular enough and if there isn't sufficient push back, he will follow through. His ideas may be moronic, but he has a sixth sense for what he can get away with.
So he'll float the idea of replacing his AG with one that will help him overthrow American votes to seize power, but given sufficient push back, he won't go through with it.
He'll float the idea of hanging on to power after losing but the reason he doesn't follow through, isn't because 'you shouldn't take him literally.' He literally meant that they should fight like hell or they'd lose their country. It's just Mike Pence wouldn't sign on to the idea and he didn't have enough Benedict Arnolds amongst the Republicans party to ratify the false slate of electors and overturn the will of the American people.
Idea floated, gains popularity, but given sufficient push back and he backed down.
Whereas, Venzuela he floats the idea out- he meant it literally, and he doesn't get that much push back from his base and goes ahead.
He floats the idea of taking Greenland and it's not that he doesn't mean it literally, it's just as moronic as most of his Cabinet is, I suppose they are not yet ready for the American empire to commit suicide just yet.
Same thing with floating the idea with not holding midterm elections or using the insurrection act 'because it would be easier. You don't have to go through the courts.' He means just that. Literally. And he will keep floating those ideas until either he judges there is sufficient support and goes ahead with it. Or he judges there is too much push back and he can't get away with it. Either way he will declare victory, and his base will say the libs were trolled, and Trump is playing 5D chess. (All roads lead to Rome with Trump and his base.)
But the thing that stops Trump isn't a principled belief on democracy and the limitations of the power of the state. Neither is it a masterclass in negotiations to threaten to withhold elections. It's only what kind of pushback he gets and if his trial balloons don't gain enough popularity. So, yes. You should take him literally. But disbelief his lies of declared victories for backing down.
Also, all politicians may lie, but Trump is uniquely corrupt as far as any American president is concerned from its founding.
|
On January 23 2026 12:40 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2026 11:52 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:45 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:40 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:30 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2026 11:28 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:26 LightSpectra wrote:On January 23 2026 11:25 ETisME wrote:On January 23 2026 11:22 LightSpectra wrote:
I asked before and you didn't answer, do all politicians have this sort of Papal infallibility against lying because there's always some deeper spiritual truth behind what they actually say, or is it just Trump? All politicians lie. That's not what I asked. Are you a moron for trying to hold any politician accountable for lies, or is it just Trump? Depends on what lies then. I also think it depends if the lie deserve much attention at all. You constantly insist Trump’s lies are the truth. He’ll declare victory and state exactly what he won. You’ll show up here and congratulate Trump on his victory. Someone will point out that he didn’t actually get those things at which point you’ll explain that Trump’s victory is in no way impacted by the non existence of the things that he used as the basis of his declaration of victory and that anybody expecting the things that he uses as the basis of his declaration of victory is silly for believing in them but you’re smart and that’s why you know that they’re not real but the victory is still real even though there’s no evidence for it. I didn't insist it's true. I said I don't take it literally. Only when called out. You declare he won and then when challenged you declare that while he won the criteria by which that victory could be measured aren’t literal. Yes because a closer to peace deal is a win. US getting TSM expanded capacity is a win. I just don't quantify the win needing to match Trump's timeline or numbers. I really need this "closer to a peace deal" thing explained. Like timewise we are of course closer to a peace deal now then we were last year, hell we will be even closer tomorrow and the day after that. That was inevitable regardless of Trump or Biden. What we do know is that more people from both sides are dying every day then ever before in this war. And I have real trouble calling that a win.
Not if you are kwark thinking this whole peace negotiation is useless and it will end with Russia collapsing and ending the ambition forever.
I think Trump definitely restarted peace talk and accelerated it, hitting on shadow fleet etc.
Biden would have done it differently.
But either way yes, there's no good outcome when the war is dragged out so long.
|
On January 23 2026 12:48 Falling wrote:Has the glorious Trump even demonstrated much capacity for abstract thinking? Why shouldn't we think his promises are literal? What is most complex book do you suppose mastermind Trump has read? Lock her up in the metaphorical sense? Or as Kwark has pointed out, a literal wall, not a metaphorical one. There are a variety of reasons why he doesn't do what what he says, but rarely as a 5D Chess. He often falls down at the policy level and so can't follow through. He lacks the patience and fortitude to see anything long term through to the end- hence he has not gone back to the wall in the second term despite having a cabinet full of lackeys and a do-nothing Congress. And he's gotten distracted from his peace in Ukraine after farting around for a year and his now playing imperial warlord instead. But this is often why he doesn't go through with everything. He floats ideas like trial balloons and if they are popular enough and if there isn't sufficient push back, he will follow through. His ideas may be moronic, but he has a sixth sense for what he can get away with. So he'll float the idea of replacing his AG with one that will help him overthrow American votes to seize power, but given sufficient push back, he won't go through with it. He'll float the idea of hanging on to power after losing but the reason he doesn't follow through, isn't because 'you shouldn't take him literally.' He literally meant that they should fight like hell or they'd lose their country. It's just Mike Pence wouldn't sign on to the idea and he didn't have enough Benedict Arnolds amongst the Republicans party to ratify the false slate of electors and overturn the will of the American people. Idea floated, gains popularity, but given sufficient push back and he backed down. Whereas, Venzuela he floats the idea out- he meant it literally, and he doesn't get that much push back from his base and goes ahead. He floats the idea of taking Greenland and it's not that he doesn't mean it literally, it's just as moronic as most of his Cabinet is, I suppose they are not yet ready for the American empire to commit suicide just yet. Same thing with floating the idea with not holding midterm elections or using the insurrection act 'because it would be easier. You don't have to go through the courts.' He means just that. Literally. And he will keep floating those ideas until either he judges there is sufficient support and goes ahead with it. Or he judges there is too much push back and he can't get away with it. Either way he will declare victory, and his base will say the libs were trolled, and Trump is playing 5D chess. (All roads lead to Rome with Trump and his base.) But the thing that stops Trump isn't a principled belief on democracy and the limitations of the power of the state. Neither is it a masterclass in negotiations to threaten to withhold elections. It's only what kind of pushback he gets and if his trial balloons don't gain enough popularity. So, yes. You should take him literally. But disbelief his lies of declared victories for backing down. Also, all politicians may lie, but Trump is uniquely corrupt as far as any American president is concerned from its founding.
He throws out what he wants and he get partial of what he wants.
This isn't 5D chess because it isn't a 5D chess move.
With abstract thinking technocrat great leaders then:
Is germany relying on russia gas 5D chess move?
Is not spending more % of GDP on defense for Europe a 5D chess move?
Is letting China take over green energy and continuing to fund China via it, a 5D chess move?
Is building china super embassy in the UK, a 5D chess move?
Is cancelling trip to Taiwan, while Canada PM meet with Xi, a 5D chess move?
It's just action and consequences.
|
Canada11398 Posts
He throws out what he wants and he get partial of what he wants.
Don't we have to take him literally then?
He literally wanted X, but instead he got X/1000 of what he wanted? That's not at all contrary to my conclusion on how Trump operates.
Furthermore, just because an idea is moronic- that doesn't prove your claim:
I think it's absurdly stupid if you think he had a chance to stop ukraine russia war, on a timer, like a switch
Of course it is moronic to think he could stop the war in a day. But what evidence do you have that he meant anything else beyond your personal incredulity that he couldn't possibly have meant that? You can derive secret meanings from a man who has the subtlety of a charging bull and the patience of a toddler, but 'high on his own supply' is the simpler explanation with his prowess in peace negotiations.
|
On January 23 2026 13:03 Falling wrote:Don't we have to take him literally then? He literally wanted X, but instead he got X/1000 of what he wanted? That's not at all contrary to my conclusion on how Trump operates.
When did I say you need to take him literally?.
|
On January 23 2026 13:03 Falling wrote:Don't we have to take him literally then? He literally wanted X, but instead he got X/1000 of what he wanted? That's not at all contrary to my conclusion on how Trump operates. Furthermore, just because an idea is moronic- that doesn't prove your claim: Show nested quote +I think it's absurdly stupid if you think he had a chance to stop ukraine russia war, on a timer, like a switch Of course it is moronic to think he could stop the war in a day. But what evidence do you have that he meant anything else beyond your personal incredulity that he possible couldn't? You can derive secret meanings from a man who has the subtlety of a charging bull and the patience of a toddler, but 'high on his own supply' is the simpler explanation with his prowess in peace negotiations.
You obviously didn't think it's absurdly stupid if you hold him accountable to saying he can end the war like a flip switch.
I for sure didn't. I however expected him to work on it quite actively which he did.
Also I don't think there's any secret meaning. What's the secret you think I derives from him having tariff or golden visa card?
What did I say about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
