|
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 February 17 2026 21:45 pmh wrote:
Its not going to last. What is happening now is even worse then what led to Clinton losing in 2016. Ignoring an increasing large part of the voterbase and have their voice not represented.
The only difference now is that it goes for both partys. The republicans are no longer seen as the savior messias alternative out of desperation which resulted in the first Trump win.
does it go for both parties though? judging by the right leaning and centrist posters on this forum - are the so called centrists not happily voting R next election?
that's a good question, centrists, when was the last time you voted for a democrat?
|
The only reason they call themselves centrists is because they need some reference point in order for "immigrants and trans people should be treated like human beings" to be so far-left that the FBI can surveil people who say it on suspicions of being due-paying members of antifa.
|
On February 17 2026 23:43 LightSpectra wrote:
The only reason they call themselves centrists is because they need some reference point in order for "immigrants and trans people should be treated like human beings" to be so far-left that the FBI can surveil people who say it on suspicions of being due-paying members of antifa.
Just to be clear:that is not my position at all.
This sort of projection is very common on this forum. Its part of the attempt to keep the democrats in this narrow focus. By suggesting someone who just points this out is a lgbti and immigrant hating nazi already.
It did bother me for a while but its so dumb i dont care anymore if people do this.
|
On February 17 2026 23:27 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2026 21:45 pmh wrote:
Its not going to last. What is happening now is even worse then what led to Clinton losing in 2016. Ignoring an increasing large part of the voterbase and have their voice not represented.
The only difference now is that it goes for both partys. The republicans are no longer seen as the savior messias alternative out of desperation which resulted in the first Trump win. does it go for both parties though? judging by the right leaning and centrist posters on this forum - are the so called centrists not happily voting R next election? that's a good question, centrists, when was the last time you voted for a democrat?
This is one of the biggest problems with FTP and specifically the American system. Almost no one is changing their vote, no matter what, which means no accountability. Every state should be purple and pick the best each election.
|
The "narrow focus" you're talking about is created by Republicans.
Trans people are less than 1% of the population. There's literally no reason for their dignity and healthcare to be a political football except because Republicans need a distraction from the fact that the overwhelming majority of their voter base don't benefit from tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of megacorps, defunding Medicaid, destroying family farms with mass tariffs, etc.
Go rewatch the campaign ads from 2024. Democratic ads were focused on things like $25,000 for first-time home buyers. Republican ads were shit like "She's for they/them, I'm for YOU".
The culture war is almost entirely defensive from the Democratic side. Human rights and equality shouldn't even be up for discussion, it should be taken for granted. Unfortunately you don't win elections by staying silent while your opponent is foaming at the mouth about Haitians eating the cats and dogs. Republicans throw that garbage out because, historically, it works. And non-voters who ignorantly say "both sides are the same" are rewarding them for it.
|
On February 18 2026 00:00 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2026 23:43 LightSpectra wrote:
The only reason they call themselves centrists is because they need some reference point in order for "immigrants and trans people should be treated like human beings" to be so far-left that the FBI can surveil people who say it on suspicions of being due-paying members of antifa. Just to be clear:that is not my position at all. This sort of projection is very common on this forum. Its part of the attempt to keep the democrats in this narrow focus. By suggesting someone who just points this out is a lgbti and immigrant hating nazi already. It did bother me for a while but its so dumb i dont care anymore if people do this. Oblade still pretends like Elon Musk didn't come on stage and did a nazi salute, twice just to be sure.
There is no such thing as a 'centralist' nazi
There can be centralist people who lean Republican, but anyone who is actually a centralist should be disgusted by this openly fascist government.
|
On February 18 2026 00:26 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2026 23:27 misirlou wrote:On February 17 2026 21:45 pmh wrote:
Its not going to last. What is happening now is even worse then what led to Clinton losing in 2016. Ignoring an increasing large part of the voterbase and have their voice not represented.
The only difference now is that it goes for both partys. The republicans are no longer seen as the savior messias alternative out of desperation which resulted in the first Trump win. does it go for both parties though? judging by the right leaning and centrist posters on this forum - are the so called centrists not happily voting R next election? that's a good question, centrists, when was the last time you voted for a democrat? This is one of the biggest problems with FTP and specifically the American system. Almost no one is changing their vote, no matter what, which means no accountability. Every state should be purple and pick the best each election.
This happens but at a level that you don't see it in pure results numbers.
Imagine you are in a class of 25 students, and on Monday 5 are absent. And on Friday 5 are absent. Did the same 20 come to class both days?
There is inertia but a party is not holding on to the exact same voters over say 30 years even if the numbers are the same. People move, people vote or don't vote, and people vote for candidates rather than party. Everything is constantly changing. Any given election like 10% of party voters flip, 10% to 40% show or up don't show up, especially for midterms. The parties are not stuck, they are actively constantly vying for parity at least in a way that looks unrecognizable the way a tug of war photo is indistinguishable from people standing still.
|
On February 17 2026 20:02 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2026 09:03 dyhb wrote:On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:On February 15 2026 17:17 oBlade wrote:On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.) What are you a centre on: Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO, NATO should be stronger. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
war in Ukraine, Israel, From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right. My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted. In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits? "Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency? Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress. Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not. I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or what are your views on the ACA? The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't. The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection?
And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'. Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating. Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection." On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations? I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong. The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June? Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration. #3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet. Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies. So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering. On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:
In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories:
a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.**
b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.) Do you have anything interesting to say on how this conforms with or breaks your A/B categories? It's reductive as hell, but I'm wondering if its open to re-examination. He's to the left of the Republican mainstream for the last two decades on at least three issues. Being to the left of republicans on 3 issues and that somehow making you a centrist is the perfect encapsulation of the republican party and politics in the US. If hes 95% in agreement with them hes still a republican, especially if he keeps voting for them. The republicans have so thoroughly convinced people that they have to fall in line and support the entirety of their platform, and their elected officials capitulate, that the above post can happen on TL. I'm more interested in the directly addressed poster, Falling's, intersection from the long response and his presumption on A/B categories.
I'm aware that this forum could be 99% in agreement with him, but if that 1% disagreement is immigration, he will be deemed 95% in agreement with Republicans and a right-winger for that belief alone. He posted around 1500 words that show a breakdown on the left-right binary, so I'd read that before going off on some allegedly Republican habit of "falling in line."
|
On February 18 2026 00:55 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2026 00:26 Billyboy wrote:On February 17 2026 23:27 misirlou wrote:On February 17 2026 21:45 pmh wrote:
Its not going to last. What is happening now is even worse then what led to Clinton losing in 2016. Ignoring an increasing large part of the voterbase and have their voice not represented.
The only difference now is that it goes for both partys. The republicans are no longer seen as the savior messias alternative out of desperation which resulted in the first Trump win. does it go for both parties though? judging by the right leaning and centrist posters on this forum - are the so called centrists not happily voting R next election? that's a good question, centrists, when was the last time you voted for a democrat? This is one of the biggest problems with FTP and specifically the American system. Almost no one is changing their vote, no matter what, which means no accountability. Every state should be purple and pick the best each election. This happens but at a level that you don't see it in pure results numbers. Imagine you are in a class of 25 students, and on Monday 5 are absent. And on Friday 5 are absent. Did the same 20 come to class both days? There is inertia but a party is not holding on to the exact same voters over say 30 years even if the numbers are the same. People move, people vote or don't vote, and people vote for candidates rather than party. Everything is constantly changing. Any given election like 10% of party voters flip, 10% to 40% show or up don't show up, especially for midterms. The parties are not stuck, they are actively constantly vying for parity at least in a way that looks unrecognizable the way a tug of war photo is indistinguishable from people standing still.
when was the last time you voted democrat? - and before you throw out a random local election that doesn't matter to anyone besides you and your neighbours - when was the last time you voted democrat at state or federal level? when are your votes flipping?
- to offer something up myself : In the past 4 prime minister elections (the most important here because executive + parliament seats) I voted on 3 different parties, including a center right wing party. And I don't consider myself a centrist I consider myself very much a leftist - but I'll happily vote for the right if I prefer their leadership and think their plan for the country is better than the alternative. - right now I'd say immigration and housing are the biggest wedge issues here (probably the case in every/most european countries)
|
On February 18 2026 01:01 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2026 20:02 Sadist wrote:On February 17 2026 09:03 dyhb wrote:On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:On February 15 2026 17:17 oBlade wrote:On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.) What are you a centre on: Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO, NATO should be stronger. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
war in Ukraine, Israel, From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right. My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted. In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits? "Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency? Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress. Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not. I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or what are your views on the ACA? The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't. The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection?
And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'. Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating. Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection." On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations? I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong. The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June? Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration. #3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet. Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies. So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering. On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:
In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories:
a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.**
b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.) Do you have anything interesting to say on how this conforms with or breaks your A/B categories? It's reductive as hell, but I'm wondering if its open to re-examination. He's to the left of the Republican mainstream for the last two decades on at least three issues. Being to the left of republicans on 3 issues and that somehow making you a centrist is the perfect encapsulation of the republican party and politics in the US. If hes 95% in agreement with them hes still a republican, especially if he keeps voting for them. The republicans have so thoroughly convinced people that they have to fall in line and support the entirety of their platform, and their elected officials capitulate, that the above post can happen on TL. I'm more interested in the directly addressed poster, Falling's, intersection from the long response and his presumption on A/B categories. I'm aware that this forum could be 99% in agreement with him, but if that 1% disagreement is immigration, he will be deemed 95% in agreement with Republicans and a right-winger for that belief alone. He posted around 1500 words that show a breakdown on the left-right binary, so I'd read that before going off on some allegedly Republican habit of "falling in line."
Labels are just labels, and I doubt "he's a republican" is at the top of anyone's list of greivances against oblade. More likely, it is the manner in which he avoids directly speaking on issues, as evidenced by every post being 1500 words of (traditionally) wiggling around whatever question he was asked instead of communicating in a straightforward manner. If it takes someone 1500 words to explain their position on k-pop hand gestures, it's reasonable to suspect they're hiding behind their words.
I understand and agree with your criticism of blanket generalizations against republicans. I disagree with trying to frame it in defense of oblade. Centrist, democrat, republican or any other label, oblade is still a weaselly lil shit.
|
On February 18 2026 08:13 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2026 01:01 dyhb wrote:On February 17 2026 20:02 Sadist wrote:On February 17 2026 09:03 dyhb wrote:On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:On February 15 2026 17:17 oBlade wrote:On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.) What are you a centre on: Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO, NATO should be stronger. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
war in Ukraine, Israel, From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right. My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted. In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits? "Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency? Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress. Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not. I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or what are your views on the ACA? The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't. The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection?
And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'. Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating. Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection." On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations? I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong. The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June? Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration. #3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet. Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies. So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering. On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:
In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories:
a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.**
b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.) Do you have anything interesting to say on how this conforms with or breaks your A/B categories? It's reductive as hell, but I'm wondering if its open to re-examination. He's to the left of the Republican mainstream for the last two decades on at least three issues. Being to the left of republicans on 3 issues and that somehow making you a centrist is the perfect encapsulation of the republican party and politics in the US. If hes 95% in agreement with them hes still a republican, especially if he keeps voting for them. The republicans have so thoroughly convinced people that they have to fall in line and support the entirety of their platform, and their elected officials capitulate, that the above post can happen on TL. I'm more interested in the directly addressed poster, Falling's, intersection from the long response and his presumption on A/B categories. I'm aware that this forum could be 99% in agreement with him, but if that 1% disagreement is immigration, he will be deemed 95% in agreement with Republicans and a right-winger for that belief alone. He posted around 1500 words that show a breakdown on the left-right binary, so I'd read that before going off on some allegedly Republican habit of "falling in line." Labels are just labels, and I doubt "he's a republican" is at the top of anyone's list of greivances against oblade. I'm not trying to settle everybody's grievances, I just want to find out from Falling if this fits into his A/B. You all can continue thinking about him as you always have after that long post for all I care.
|
On February 18 2026 09:23 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2026 08:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 18 2026 01:01 dyhb wrote:On February 17 2026 20:02 Sadist wrote:On February 17 2026 09:03 dyhb wrote:On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:On February 15 2026 17:17 oBlade wrote:On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.) What are you a centre on: Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO, NATO should be stronger. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
war in Ukraine, Israel, From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right. My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted. In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits? "Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency? Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress. Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not. I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or what are your views on the ACA? The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't. The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection?
And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'. Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating. Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection." On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations? I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong. The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June? Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration. #3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet. Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies. So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering. On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:
In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories:
a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.**
b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.) Do you have anything interesting to say on how this conforms with or breaks your A/B categories? It's reductive as hell, but I'm wondering if its open to re-examination. He's to the left of the Republican mainstream for the last two decades on at least three issues. Being to the left of republicans on 3 issues and that somehow making you a centrist is the perfect encapsulation of the republican party and politics in the US. If hes 95% in agreement with them hes still a republican, especially if he keeps voting for them. The republicans have so thoroughly convinced people that they have to fall in line and support the entirety of their platform, and their elected officials capitulate, that the above post can happen on TL. I'm more interested in the directly addressed poster, Falling's, intersection from the long response and his presumption on A/B categories. I'm aware that this forum could be 99% in agreement with him, but if that 1% disagreement is immigration, he will be deemed 95% in agreement with Republicans and a right-winger for that belief alone. He posted around 1500 words that show a breakdown on the left-right binary, so I'd read that before going off on some allegedly Republican habit of "falling in line." Labels are just labels, and I doubt "he's a republican" is at the top of anyone's list of greivances against oblade. I'm not trying to settle everybody's grievances, I just want to find out from Falling if this fits into his A/B. You all can continue thinking about him as you always have after that long post for all I care.
"Always have" has a subtle implication that it isn't an earned quality, as though "We all" were born hating oblade, or just read the name oblade and collectively thought "oh fuck this guy."
Again this feels hypocritical in light of your posting against people lumping "You all" conservatives together under negative labels.
I hope Falling will answer you, and I'm curious what their response might be.
|
On February 18 2026 09:52 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2026 09:23 dyhb wrote:On February 18 2026 08:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 18 2026 01:01 dyhb wrote:On February 17 2026 20:02 Sadist wrote:On February 17 2026 09:03 dyhb wrote:On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:On February 15 2026 17:17 oBlade wrote:On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.) What are you a centre on: Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO, NATO should be stronger. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
war in Ukraine, Israel, From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right. My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted. In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits? "Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency? Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress. Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not. I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or what are your views on the ACA? The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't. The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection?
And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'. Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating. Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection." On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations? I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong. The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June? Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration. #3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet. Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama. On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies. So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering. On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:
In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories:
a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.**
b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.) Do you have anything interesting to say on how this conforms with or breaks your A/B categories? It's reductive as hell, but I'm wondering if its open to re-examination. He's to the left of the Republican mainstream for the last two decades on at least three issues. Being to the left of republicans on 3 issues and that somehow making you a centrist is the perfect encapsulation of the republican party and politics in the US. If hes 95% in agreement with them hes still a republican, especially if he keeps voting for them. The republicans have so thoroughly convinced people that they have to fall in line and support the entirety of their platform, and their elected officials capitulate, that the above post can happen on TL. I'm more interested in the directly addressed poster, Falling's, intersection from the long response and his presumption on A/B categories. I'm aware that this forum could be 99% in agreement with him, but if that 1% disagreement is immigration, he will be deemed 95% in agreement with Republicans and a right-winger for that belief alone. He posted around 1500 words that show a breakdown on the left-right binary, so I'd read that before going off on some allegedly Republican habit of "falling in line." Labels are just labels, and I doubt "he's a republican" is at the top of anyone's list of greivances against oblade. I'm not trying to settle everybody's grievances, I just want to find out from Falling if this fits into his A/B. You all can continue thinking about him as you always have after that long post for all I care. "Always have" has a subtle implication that it isn't an earned quality, as though "We all" were born hating oblade, or just read the name oblade and collectively thought "oh fuck this guy." Again this feels hypocritical in light of your posting against people lumping "You all" conservatives together under negative labels. I hope Falling will answer you, and I'm curious what their response might be. As people have reminded me multiple times and I have read myself, these threads go back decades and the interpersonal struggles are mostly unknown to me. You're reading too much into this, so please interpret my intention to mean that I do not seek to overturn your "list of greivances."
|
Canada11594 Posts
Remember the goal at the outset was simply explain I'm not a conservative, now if we want to go beyond that and challenge these now random issues, okay.
Not exactly. The goal was to explain how you were meaningfully a centrist despite having a huge body of posts where you exclusively defend Trump or at least run interference for him. Remember, I think the conservative movement in the US has been co-opted by whatever MAGA is, so not being a conservative is not a surprise to me.
Hence, a lot of my 'random' issues were less to do with Left-Right divide and more to do with some (there are so many) of the egregious actions done by Trump. At the very least, somebody in the political centre (or centre left or centre right) has no reason to defend, deflect, or downplay blatant corruption, his lies, or his stupid actions as they are not locked into prior partisan commitments. But you can't help but carry water for Trump.
Like, how are you coming in here claiming Trump is making NATO stronger when the man is out here threatening NATO members and denying they ever helped? If NATO is stronger under Trump, how is it that NATO countries are suddenly waffling about buying from American military industries? Is that a successful America First policy?
Whatever centrist values you claim to have are subordinated to reflexively defending whatever nonsense Trump is up to.
On February 16 2026 23:47 KwarK wrote:
Falling, you absolutely deserve that nonsense response for expecting a good faith answer.
Probably. It is what it is.
|
Not to mention Trump's decades-long history of attacking NATO using Russian talking points, ever since he was bailed out by Russian dirty money.
|
On February 18 2026 02:07 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2026 00:55 oBlade wrote:On February 18 2026 00:26 Billyboy wrote:On February 17 2026 23:27 misirlou wrote:On February 17 2026 21:45 pmh wrote:
Its not going to last. What is happening now is even worse then what led to Clinton losing in 2016. Ignoring an increasing large part of the voterbase and have their voice not represented.
The only difference now is that it goes for both partys. The republicans are no longer seen as the savior messias alternative out of desperation which resulted in the first Trump win. does it go for both parties though? judging by the right leaning and centrist posters on this forum - are the so called centrists not happily voting R next election? that's a good question, centrists, when was the last time you voted for a democrat? This is one of the biggest problems with FTP and specifically the American system. Almost no one is changing their vote, no matter what, which means no accountability. Every state should be purple and pick the best each election. This happens but at a level that you don't see it in pure results numbers. Imagine you are in a class of 25 students, and on Monday 5 are absent. And on Friday 5 are absent. Did the same 20 come to class both days? There is inertia but a party is not holding on to the exact same voters over say 30 years even if the numbers are the same. People move, people vote or don't vote, and people vote for candidates rather than party. Everything is constantly changing. Any given election like 10% of party voters flip, 10% to 40% show or up don't show up, especially for midterms. The parties are not stuck, they are actively constantly vying for parity at least in a way that looks unrecognizable the way a tug of war photo is indistinguishable from people standing still. when was the last time you voted democrat? - and before you throw out a random local election that doesn't matter to anyone besides you and your neighbours - when was the last time you voted democrat at state or federal level? when are your votes flipping? - to offer something up myself : In the past 4 prime minister elections (the most important here because executive + parliament seats) I voted on 3 different parties, including a center right wing party. And I don't consider myself a centrist I consider myself very much a leftist - but I'll happily vote for the right if I prefer their leadership and think their plan for the country is better than the alternative. - right now I'd say immigration and housing are the biggest wedge issues here (probably the case in every/most european countries)
IMO US voting system is more like a cult than actual politics. You can't just change your vote. What will the neighbors say? They will cast you out of bible club, that's for sure.
Just be glad you are not living there. I know I am
|
On February 18 2026 12:32 Falling wrote:
Like, how are you coming in here claiming Trump is making NATO stronger when the man is out here threatening NATO members and denying they ever helped? If NATO is stronger under Trump, how is it that NATO countries are suddenly waffling about buying from American military industries? Is that a successful America First policy?
Unless you are America First and think the Trump administration's America First strategy is good, this rhetorical gotcha doesn't appear to line up. Your issues with this administration, do they include not being America First enough?
I already explained what's stronger. Stoltenberg is literally on record acknowledging higher member commitments is due to Trump. Boris Johnson is on record saying Putin would not have attacked Ukraine if Trump were in office. Iran had the finger of God dropped on them and if Venezuela has their own version of the X-Files it couldn't script an abduction as fantastical as the capture of Maduro. The US is stronger so NATO is stronger. Everyone else in NATO being stronger would also help NATO be stronger.
NATO countries are not like a table in the cafeteria of the movie Mean Girls where the wrong gossip will cause a cataclysmic collapse. Even though some of its citizens react like that. The "threat" towards Denmark was Trump refused to rule out using military force in Greenland, when asked, and then later and more recently ruled out using military force when asked, ending whatever the threat was. The criticism of member contributions in a war where they lost soldiers is crass and tasteless. Obviously. But has a basis in reality. + Show Spoiler +The US is the biggest single member and contributor, but by count of total service members it's under the majority. You might thus expect casualties to have been a statistical reflection of that, but the US had about two thirds of the casualties in Afghanistan, which was after the use of Article 5. (It also had the overwhelming majority of casualties in Iraq which was not an Article 5 invocation and not a NATO operation or America First, but Cheney First.) It's imbalanced going by just the numbers, but on the other hand there are good reasons you'd expect it to be imbalanced both with America being the leader and the one attacked. Yes every sacrifice is a sacrifice. The underlying key point that Trump and also Hegseth iirc expressed without any tact is the US does contribute proportionally more and did sacrifice more in Afghanistan.
How does that make NATO stronger? Being crass and apparently threatening and then undoing it? It doesn't. Those aren't the things he did that made NATO stronger. Nor did I say they are. I told you upfront I think A causes B, you ignore it then ask me but then how can there be B if C, then how could C cause B (I think?). My answer is it doesn't. I agree with you. My answer if you keep asking me is I never said C causes B. At some point realize the existence of people who disagree with you.
For "waffling." I will lose absolutely zero sleep if Raytheon and Lockheed Martin get less money. Europe would not be weaker with more arms production and RELYING on the US less. For Russia I don't know but for China, industrial production is their sustained strategic advantage. This is a long-term problem the "postindustrial" economies (if you believe that) face. At the end of WW2 the US had more aircraft carriers than we have destroyers now. Who can make ships? Korea, maybe Norfolk. Who can make literally 200x more tonnage at this very moment? China. My idea of a strong NATO is actually not America manufacturing and supplying the only nonrepairable nonserviceable overpriced everything and Europe sitting around with progressively smaller armies as they phase out mandatory service. Please make arms factories all over Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy. Like you win the internet gotcha. Orange man bad. Just one favor please. Just make industry. That's all.
|
Europe is stronger because NATO is weaker.
Prior to Trump there was never any doubt on NATOs commitment to mutual defence.
If you were to ask people if the US would honour its commitment if tomorrow Estonia is invaded by Russia your going to get a 50:50 at best.
Europe being slightly stronger, but only slightly but the US 's commitment being in any form of doubt is a massive net negative to the strength of NATO.
To anyone but you NATO is the weakest it has ever been, because of Trump.
|
United States44245 Posts
But what about what BoJo said. On record. He said it on record!
|
I still didn't get an answer from oBlade 
What's the best tariffs for Switzerland ? 30% because that's what the trade deficit is ? 39% because Trump didn't like that swiss woman ? Or 15% because swiss business men gave Trump a 1kg gold bar and a rolex ?
Is more tariffs good ? Less tariffs better ? How do the American people benefit from these changes ? Is it ok to choose trade policies based on whether or not someone annoyed you or whether or not someone gave you gifts ? Are you ok with bribery?
So many questions
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
