EPTBut while I am at it, I will always recommend the ethics of ambiguity by Simone de Beauvoir. I should probably read it again. I probably need to right about now.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5473
| 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 | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
But while I am at it, I will always recommend the ethics of ambiguity by Simone de Beauvoir. I should probably read it again. I probably need to right about now. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
On January 28 2026 10:40 KwarK wrote: If you’re missing him too much I could post bad faith arguments and then refuse to respond if anyone takes the bait. It’ll be like he’s still with us. Eh I put him in the same category as Introvert. I disagree with most of what he put forward and don't have the same worldview most of the time, but I can still see they're actual humans underneath. Contrast that with oblade and JJR, as the shining examples. @dpb pretty sure he just stopped coming around? @mohdoo, lightspectra : tbh I don't understand the references, though I can understand it's in reference to dumb shit BJ said in the past. Nonetheless, I'm curious if recent events worry him, or if he's on the side of oblade explaining how executing civilians is totally justified because they were being annoying. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6540 Posts
On January 28 2026 12:57 Fleetfeet wrote: Eh I put him in the same category as Introvert. I disagree with most of what he put forward and don't have the same worldview most of the time, but I can still see they're actual humans underneath. Contrast that with oblade and JJR, as the shining examples. @dpb pretty sure he just stopped coming around? @mohdoo, lightspectra : tbh I don't understand the references, though I can understand it's in reference to dumb shit BJ said in the past. Nonetheless, I'm curious if recent events worry him, or if he's on the side of oblade explaining how executing civilians is totally justified because they were being annoying. Quote where I said that. | ||
|
dyhb
United States769 Posts
On January 28 2026 08:06 Falling wrote: The theory's trash and the book is very overwrought but ... I did just see a bunch of businessmen leave California at the threat of future wealth taxes. That's a state, not the whole country, and there's no secret capitalist base in the mountains.Atlas Shrugged at least had an interesting premise: what would happen if all the competent people disappeared. And the mystery posed at the beginning "Who is John Galt?" is fantastic. The 'story' that follows never rises above this question and seems to me a poorly disguised essay slumming as a piece of fiction. I think what makes 1984 and Brave New World continually topical is that they have some true insight into the nature of things even if the particular world they imagine in their speculative fiction never arises. Whereas, Atlas Shrugged fails in its criticism that the 'fairness' ideology is something arising in America sufficient for people to self-sabatoge their own businesses. What Atlas Shrugged marks as the engine of America's destruction is insufficient for what it imagines. Now, after reading Gulag Archipelago, I can understand where Rand got some of her ideas from, but that only strengthens my initial critique of Atlas Shrugged (which I wrote a very long blog on a decade ago): Atlas Shrugged needed an ideology as strong as Marxism to power the actions of the book's antagonists. Taking it too seriously is a mistake. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
Taking it too seriously is a mistake. Ten years ago when there was a Republican party, that book was waved around, with political leaders swearing by it as the next best thing to the Bible and the constitution. | ||
|
dyhb
United States769 Posts
On January 28 2026 14:35 Falling wrote: Ayn Rand is pretty good at exaggerations and operatic figures, but you don't have to imitate her. Ten years ago when there was a Republican party, that book was waved around, with political leaders swearing by it as the next best thing to the Bible and the constitution. This is rooted in Rand Paul or Ron Paul, and some very clever try at "it was mentioned favorably, therefore stood just behind the Bible and the Constitution?" If the Republican party said Atlas Shrugged stood behind the Bible and the Constitution, then clearly the Democratic Party swore by the Communist Manifesto and Rules for Radicals. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
I never made any comments about you saying anything. Read better. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6540 Posts
On January 28 2026 15:15 Fleetfeet wrote: I never made any comments about you saying anything. Read better. You said I'm on the side of executing civilians is totally justified because they were being annoying. Back it up. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
On January 28 2026 15:35 oBlade wrote: You said I'm on the side of executing civilians is totally justified because they were being annoying. Back it up. Nono, I implied you're a dumb piece of shit that isn't worth reading or listening to. Introvert and Blackjack were examples of people I ideologically disagree with often, but still come across as thinking, breathing humans underneath. You and JJR were examples of the shining examples of -not that-. Back that up? Back up what, that I think you're a dumb piece of shit not worth reading? Okay. Here: On January 28 2026 13:07 oBlade wrote: Quote where I said that. Any other questions? - e - To extend a branch, I want to be clear. You could (fairly) be confused and think that I -do- read your posts and have formed an opinion based on what you've said recently. When I say you're not worth reading, I mean you're not worth reading and so I don't. "On the side of oblade explaining how executing civilians is totally justified..." is based on others' responses to your shit, and has given me that implication. I don't care at all if that statement is true or fair to you. You're not worth reading, which means I don't. | ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2451 Posts
On January 28 2026 15:35 oBlade wrote: You said I'm on the side of executing civilians is totally justified because they were being annoying. Back it up. Actually, technically, Fleetfeet said you were explaining why executing civilians is totally justified because they were being annoying. Not that you said or believe that. Indeed, you've several times insisted you don't believe that. But you sure did a lot of explaining and justifying, the best you can object to is the word "totally". | ||
|
oBlade
United States6540 Posts
On January 28 2026 15:59 Fleetfeet wrote: Nono, I implied you're a dumb piece of shit that isn't worth reading or listening to. Introvert and Blackjack were examples of people I ideologically disagree with often, but still come across as thinking, breathing humans underneath. You and JJR were examples of the shining examples of -not that-. Back that up? Back up what, that I think you're a dumb piece of shit not worth reading? Okay. Here: Any other questions? I'll understand this as you have retracted your spurious claim, or implication, that I'm on the side that executing civilians is justified because they were being annoying. Once we've acquired object permanence we can realize BlackJack the human still exists even if you didn't see him post something in this thread. Introvert posted a few days ago. To what they "were" examples of, they still are no matter how much you want to dehumanize me out of boredom. The next time you wonder what BlackJack or any other human is thinking, you can actually just say "I wonder what BlackJack is thinking" without bringing up my name for no reason. That avoids causing other posters to repeat your same misunderstanding about what I'm on the "side" of. If you were really curious and not posturing, you would probably message him. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
On January 28 2026 16:09 oBlade wrote: I'll understand this as you have retracted your spurious claim, or implication, that I'm on the side that executing civilians is justified because they were being annoying. Once we've acquired object permanence we can realize BlackJack the human still exists even if you didn't see him post something in this thread. Introvert posted a few days ago. To what they "were" examples of, they still are no matter how much you want to dehumanize me out of boredom. The next time you wonder what BlackJack or any other human is thinking, you can actually just say "I wonder what BlackJack is thinking" without bringing up my name for no reason. That avoids causing other posters to repeat your same misunderstanding about what I'm on the "side" of. If you were really curious and not posturing, you would probably message him. Whatever helps you sleep at night, bud. You still don't know how to fucking read. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18450 Posts
On January 28 2026 16:09 oBlade wrote: I'll understand this as you have retracted your spurious claim, or implication, that I'm on the side that executing civilians is justified because they were being annoying. Once we've acquired object permanence we can realize BlackJack the human still exists even if you didn't see him post something in this thread. Introvert posted a few days ago. To what they "were" examples of, they still are no matter how much you want to dehumanize me out of boredom. The next time you wonder what BlackJack or any other human is thinking, you can actually just say "I wonder what BlackJack is thinking" without bringing up my name for no reason. That avoids causing other posters to repeat your same misunderstanding about what I'm on the "side" of. If you were really curious and not posturing, you would probably message him. So are you going to denounce Kristi Noem's behaviour? And agree that ICE are not behaving as an agency that exists to deport immigrants, but instead are terrorists and need to be abolished in their current form? Or are you going to continue to claim you're not on "the side of executing civilians is totally justified because they were being annoying" while continuously running defense for all the people in power who very clearly ARE on that side? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3271 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5226 Posts
Same thing with the: "I haven't said anything vile, have I" play: they don't literally use curse words, but the overall sentiment is usually abhorrent. Luckily good old Guilt by association can guide us here. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6540 Posts
On January 28 2026 16:14 Fleetfeet wrote: Whatever helps you sleep at night, bud. You still don't know how to fucking read. I'm pretty sure you're not saying that you think I'm a dumb piece of shit not worth reading because you believe and are maintaining that I don't support the government executing civilians for being annoying. That wouldn't make sense. On January 28 2026 16:34 Acrofales wrote: So are you going to denounce Kristi Noem's behaviour? I don't follow "Kristi Noem's behaviour" so you'll have to be specific about what this is supposed to be. Like legitimately I have no idea what this means and if you just walk around telling people to denounce Kristi Noem like you denounce Satan you sound like a cultist. I haven't seen something about Kristi Noem and not formed an opinion on it (which is also possible), I just have no idea what this is even in reference to. Sorry. On January 28 2026 16:34 Acrofales wrote: And agree that ICE are not behaving as an agency that exists to deport immigrants, but instead are terrorists and need to be abolished in their current form? They deported hundreds of thousands of people in 2025, about a third convicted criminals, plus many more charged and suspected criminals (who would be eligible for deportation anyway because their statutory scope is they deport people who aren't supposed to be here and not only convicted criminals). In 2025 in the whole country "they" killed 2 people that I know, Silverio Villegas Gonzalez while he was driving his car into them/dragging them allegedly, and Isaias Sanchez Barboza in a struggle at the border that he had been caught sneaking over. I use "they" in scare quotes because if killing annoying people were a federal-wide policy, the streets would be red. Local and state police kill more than that (and this is before even looking at justified vs. not), and if you suggested local and state police are terrorists who need to be abolished, I would just think your freely held opinion was wrong. Now but if you stoop to saying I'm also the enemy and defending terrorists by association just by virtue of not agreeing with you, if you were a US citizen I would submit that that is just Weather Underground level subversion. Even the civil war was more cordial. It was posted that state police in MN by the way are helping settle down protestors now. Do you think they are terrorists? On January 28 2026 16:34 Acrofales wrote: Or are you going to continue to claim you're not on "the side of executing civilians is totally justified because they were being annoying" while continuously running defense for all the people in power who very clearly ARE on that side? Again I think we're far apart on this, the streets would be flooded red. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1757 Posts
32 people died in ICE custody last year. In other news, oBlade the boot licker still hasn't uttered a bad word about Noem, Vance, Trump, Miller or even Bovino. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3271 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
On January 28 2026 23:37 LightSpectra wrote: ICE deports five-year-old US citizen to Honduras despite being told she was born in America: https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/ice-deportation-honduras-us-citizen-1646932 The outcome in that one feels preferable to the alternative of foster care. If the article is to be believed the mother came to the US as an economic migrant with no basis for entering or staying. She was ordered to leave and did not and then subsequently had a child in a country that she was not allowed to be in. She has deliberately and knowingly created a situation in which her child will either end up in foster care or end up deported with her. The article says that she has no connection to Honduras but that's not true, she's a dual citizen by descent. She may not have applied for the Honduran government to legally recognize that citizenship but it is her birthright. The larger issue for me is that the 5 year old was not provided an advocate and did not go before a judge. The 5 year old is a US citizen and ought to have legal protections per the constitution. I volunteer and serve on the board of a nonprofit in this field, it is exceptionally important for the protection of children from abuse that they have an advocate independent of, and if necessary adversarial to, the state. The state will declare that it is going to do what it is going to do per its policies but that will very frequently differ from what it is required to do per the law. Minors generally lack the knowledge and capacity to demand and receive their constitutional rights, they get abused and neglected. They need advocacy. That's the problem with a lot of the "common sense" enforcement policy that conservatives push, they don't care about the protections that are an essential part of the process. They assume that anyone who fights them must necessarily disagree with the need for any immigration enforcement. That rules out people like me who think that enforcement should be done humanely and with appropriate constitutional safeguards, or not at all. Even if the decision is ultimately correct the process by which we get there is just as important, similar to imprisoning a criminal who happened to have actually done it without a trial. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6540 Posts
On January 28 2026 19:47 Jankisa wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/04/ice-2025-deaths-timeline 32 people died in ICE custody last year. Yes, that's basically correct. With the quibbling exception of like Rivera, who was killed because he was running away from ICE across an interstate and got hit by traffic. Since he was fleeing he can't really said to have been in custody. To distinguish the two people I mentioned who were shot, but not in custody (hence why my two names aren't on your list), the couple of people in your list who were shot in custody were shot by the terrorist Joshua Jahn in an attack on a facility in Dallas. But the gist of your post is exactly correct. More people die of heart attacks/strokes, or terminal illness in hospitals they are transferred to after being apprehended by the secret police, than of being shot and killed by the secret police. For 2025 at least. | ||
| ||
