|
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 |
Good riddance.
And not a good replacement.
|
The EU did the same (ask Ukraine for how to defend against the Iranian drones).
I imagine there will be some discussions about how much they can try to get out of Trump in exchange.
|
"The only way we can help is if you surrender Florida to Iran. Anyway, have you even said thank you?"
|
If you keep asking yourself, where was Markwayne Mullin on Jan 6th, when the westfold fell:
Hidding under his chair
|
Literally defending his homeland bare-handed. CV-ready picture.
|
|
|
The no difference folks opinions have sure aged awfully.
|
I find it funny that some people in the US are very concerned about the US military committing possible war crimes by bombing boats and schools. They have even reminded members of the military not to follow illegal orders. It seems so different from how they react when an ally commits similar acts.
|
Obviously not defending how Israel conducted the Gaza War, but one could at least make the argument that Hamas started that war and Israel was just doing what they had to do to get their hostages back. I still think indiscriminately bombing civilian areas was criminal and grossly inhumane regardless of that.
The U.S. has no excuse. We started this war. Iran was literally still at the negotiating table when the bombs started dropping. There are no hostages. We're committing war crimes for the absolute fucks of it.
|
Not just any ally, what USA is willing to tolerate and do for Israel is absolutely unprecedented in the world history. The support is bipartisan and only sniffs some limits and "condemnations" in the scenarios where Democrats are in power.
The only president who was willing to be "tough on Israel" in the last 30 years was Obama, and Trump has dedicated most of his ME policy to dismantling everything he achieved there.
Of course, the "no difference" morons are and always will be tankies and morons, the difference is big and obvious, the only Democrat that I could ever see joining Israel in this shit show is the brain damaged moron who voted against the resolution to reign Trump in on this war, Fetterman.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On March 07 2026 00:54 Jankisa wrote:
Not just any ally, what USA is willing to tolerate and do for Israel is absolutely unprecedented in the world history. The support is bipartisan and only sniffs some limits and "condemnations" in the scenarios where Democrats are in power.
The only president who was willing to be "tough on Israel" in the last 30 years was Obama, and Trump has dedicated most of his ME policy to dismantling everything he achieved there.
Of course, the "no difference" morons are and always will be tankies and morons, the difference is big and obvious, the only Democrat that I could ever see joining Israel in this shit show is the brain damaged moron who voted against the resolution to reign Trump in on this war, Fetterman.
I’m sure it’s not unprecedented, there’s a lot of world history to go around! But it sure is odd that’s for fucking certain.
I mean the Pope back in the day sure as hell got various states to bat for him. That is at least explicable around a framework of the seat of a religion wielding a ton of power in times of more fervent religious belief and the political configuration.
Supporting Israel to some degree, yeah I can see plenty of angles there. But the degree to which the US does, yeah that baffles me.
I think what makes it so increasingly strange is that it’s occurring in a timeframe where the US’ executive branch is continually shitting on other allies of long standing for well, seemingly anything.
Yeah the idea that it’d have made no difference if Harris had carried the election is almost similarly unfathomable to my perhaps puny brain. Not enough difference, I mean sure but that’s not the same claim.
How everything would have shaken out, too many variables to consider. Some things I believe to be almost certain:
1. Dems don’t just give Israel carte blanche to do basically whatever. Even if it’s nothing that impactful, a few percent on an arbitrary scale of less rope being given, it wouldn’t be as extreme.
2. I don’t think you see as much admin outrage and clamping down on things like campus protests, or the expulsion of diplomats based on their views on the conflict. Not to say you see none of it, but this admin has made a very public virtue of clamping down, or throwing out such rhetoric.
3. For me this is possibly the most important, I don’t think you see a Dem administration shitting on allies, NATO in a time where it’s actually needed, nor in seemingly endless tariff wars. Amidst all this chaos and capriciousness you have to worry about keeping the US (Trump) sweet all the time, there are no real givens. It dilutes collective ability to keep pressure up on a conflict like the Israel/Palestine one if you’re having to spin multiple plates and try and second-guess what the US reaction will be any given week. And hey, maybe the alternative doesn’t shift the scales sufficiently, but the ground would be more fertile.
4. I can’t see a Dem admin joining the current operation in Iran with Israel in the form it has taken. If, on this alternative timeline they did so, surely it’s not in this exact manner.
As a semi-related aside, it’s all genuinely quite bizarre to me. You’ll see many a scathing response to x country being even vaguely critical of Israel. Except Ireland of course! One of the most Pro-Palestine nations in Europe. If it exists, it’s not been from more prominent figures anyway, that I’ve seen.
It’s like this lot can shit on basically any nation but don’t have the balls to because of the optics to Irish-Americans. Another cohort whose influence makes very little sense to me in contemporary times.
|
On March 07 2026 00:29 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Remember when people called Biden "Genocide Joe" after he ordered the U.S. military to build a pier in Gaza to ensure aid supplies were reaching civilians?
I believe most people called him "Genocide Joe" because he was aiding and abetting a genocide despite a majority of his party and the country ostensibly opposing him doing so.
|
Ah, right on queue. You said previously in this thread you liked Trump's foreign policy better than what Kamala Harris campaigned on, is that still true?
|
Calling him genocide Joe was still stupid, tho.
Don't get me wrong, I think he was a terrible president, more supportive of Israel then, well, maybe anyone other then Trump, he also fucked Cuba over by keeping Trump's policy towards it, laid seeds to do the Venezuela operation by prosecuting Maduro, his shitty son was on the board of Ukrainian company for no fucking reason and that is enough for MAGA crowd to "but Hunter Biden" any time their golden idol steals another billion or gives one of his retarded children a board seat on a defense contractor.
Shortsighted, dog walked, selfish, egotistic Joe, sure, calling him genocide Joe just makes whoever is doing it look like a petulant child and is generally unhelpful.
Even worse, recycling the same moniker for "genocide Kamala" is even dumber and it absolutely cost her votes, but what caused Democrats the election was much more Biden being all of the above, his support for genocide in Gaza is maybe on the periphery of top 10 reasons.
It's like the Godwin's law just for lefties.
|
On March 07 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2026 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2026 00:29 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Remember when people called Biden "Genocide Joe" after he ordered the U.S. military to build a pier in Gaza to ensure aid supplies were reaching civilians? I believe most people called him "Genocide Joe" because he was aiding and abetting a genocide despite a majority of his party and the country ostensibly opposing him doing so. Ah, right on queue. You said previously in this thread you liked Trump's foreign policy better than what Kamala Harris campaigned on, is that still true?
Cool whataboutism!
I don't know what you're talking about though.
EDIT: Seems you didn't either.
|
On March 07 2026 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote:On March 07 2026 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2026 00:29 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Remember when people called Biden "Genocide Joe" after he ordered the U.S. military to build a pier in Gaza to ensure aid supplies were reaching civilians? I believe most people called him "Genocide Joe" because he was aiding and abetting a genocide despite a majority of his party and the country ostensibly opposing him doing so. Ah, right on queue. You said previously in this thread you liked Trump's foreign policy better than what Kamala Harris campaigned on, is that still true? Cool whataboutism! I don't know what you're talking about though.
The conversation was about the difference between the two, bringing it up is not whataboutism it is the discussion.
|
I'm not that sure that Democrats would not end up supporting similar solutions to Gaza or strikes against Iran. I think the main question would have been which Democrats feared more: losing the more left-leaning, progressive voters, or losing the voters who think the party has leaned too far left and need to win over some of the Trump voters. It seems quite clear which Democrats fear more. After all, one of the two has little choice with the parties and should simply choose the lesser evil. Also, voters' memories are short, so taking actions similar to Trump's would not actually be that costly. After a while, making noise about action would be considered detrimental, weird and out of touch with more important issues.
There is also a question of how far Israel would push, knowing that it would cause more problems for Democrats. Eventually, sure, it could cause Democrats to turn against them, but how far could they go? Even the reasoning that Israel would have attacked anyway, so joining beforehand was a better option, could easily play out. It pretty much happened with last year's war. Not joining an ally in a "reasonable" attack could easily be viewed as a failure, even by Democrats. What if the ally would become more distant after successfully performing a risky operation without you? Especially if Biden managed to remain president, keeping things the same as before would have surely looked like a solid option, including maintaining relations with Israel. Leaving the debate for the next presidential primaries is also a nice option, as most voters would have dropped the issue, and candidates would be less likely to bring it up if the situation is not as bad again.
This attack on Iran could be easier to sell with clearer, simpler goals about removing the threatening buildup and capabilities. Especially focusing on drone production could have been a strong angle, as it would easily tie the attack to support for Ukraine and make sure Houthis would not get those to use against cargo ships. Just timing the strikes a month and a half earlier would have better tied them to the Iranian protests. Even the nuclear weapons reasoning would work for Democrats. The official reasons for the operation can be fitted for the sensibilities of Democratic voters. Also, last year's strikes already mean very little, and there is really no reason similar acts would have meant more to voters if Democrats had done them. If Trump is done with the operation in a couple of months and avoids a land war, voters will not hold this against Republicans or Trump, and I repeat that the same would most likely be true for any Democrat.
Compared to these attacks against Iran, a solution for Gaza would have been much harder to sell. In Gaza, Israel has a much easier time playing the victim of Hamas, breaking any attempts for a cease-fire or a long-term deal. Democrats are also likely to lack a clear direction. They would have a hard time forming any temporary decision body like the Board of Peace, as they would know how silly they look without proper participation from all parties. Same with any form of Israel staying in control of some areas, as giving away land to achieve peace does not fit well while supporting Ukraine. This leaves only clawing things back to the former status quo and a token mention of the two-state solution. Something like the first cease-fire, continued without attempts to move forward on the negotiations and with the hostilities cooling down, would probably be the best outcome. However, it would still be really easy to sell the idea that Hamas broke the ceasefire and Israel must remove Hamas with anymeans necessary, which would continue the divide in Democrats. It seems unlikely that Democrats would turn on Israel just for sabotaging negotiations, considering how much they were willing to stomach in 2024.
With Trump's attacks against Europe and NATO not causing total collapse among the Republican base, it has become clear that most seem to consider Israel a more important ally than Europe. One is mocked while the other is joined in unpopular operations with questionable goals. As stupid as Hegseth's speeches about warrior ethos are, I think they speak profoundly to many Americans, and Israel offers a way to live by such ideas while Europe does not. Thus, there is probably much more leeway for aggressive action for both parties than people think. Especially, when it is against well-established threats and enemies like Islamic Iran, communist countries like Cuba and China, and violent, invading drug cartels controlling South America.
|
Complete lunacy to think Biden or Harris would've attacked Iran if they won the 2024 election. There's literally no evidence to suggest any prominent Democrats think this is a good idea. Trump gets away with it because his base is a suicide cult and he needs a distraction from the Epstein files implicating him as a child molester, but the media would be absolutely shredding a Democratic president for causing dead Americans, dead civilians, and the economy to decline because of an avoidable war.
Congress literally just voted on this and 44 out of 45 Democratic Senators, 210 out of 214 Democratic House Reps. voted against the war, over 98% of them. There's no appetite for war in this country except among the "bomb brown people to start the Apocalypse" evangelicals. Even a good portion of Republicans thinks it's a terrible idea. Compare to Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, it was political suicide to go against those wars.
Edit: Also, Netanyahu has been begging the U.S. to strike Iran for like thirty years now. Clinton could have, Obama could have, Biden could have. Hell, the Bushes could have too, they just didn't. There's nothing substantially different in 2026. Trump was just the first idiot to fall for it.
|
On March 07 2026 05:36 LightSpectra wrote:
Complete lunacy to think Biden or Harris would've attacked Iran if they won the 2024 election. There's literally no evidence to suggest any prominent Democrats think this is a good idea. Trump gets away with it because his base is a suicide cult and he needs a distraction from the Epstein files implicating him as a child molester, but the media would be absolutely shredding a Democratic president for causing dead Americans, dead civilians, and the economy to decline because of an avoidable war.
Congress literally just voted on this and 44 out of 45 Democratic Senators, 210 out of 214 Democratic House Reps. voted against the war, over 98% of them. There's no appetite for war in this country except among the "bomb brown people to start the Apocalypse" evangelicals. Even a good portion of Republicans thinks it's a terrible idea. Compare to Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, it was political suicide to go against those wars.
Edit: Also, Netanyahu has been begging the U.S. to strike Iran for like thirty years now. Clinton could have, Obama could have, Biden could have. Hell, the Bushes could have too, they just didn't. There's nothing substantially different in 2026. Trump was just the first idiot to fall for it.
When I imagine Democrats running the economy and conducting strikes against countries like Iran, I think that they would do so quite competently compared to the current situation. Thus, I have a hard time trusting that all those votes are incapable of being changed with a Democrat as president, and the reasons are being fitted for their liking. At this time, the vote was not going to pass anyway, so playing along is an easy choice, even if they think there could be reasons that could justify such an attack for them. They would likely have been involved in the discussions leading to the attack under Democrat leadership and would not have been surprised by an incompetent mess. They would be telling their voters about succesful operation that ensured national security.
Similarly, I don't think that Biden or Harris would simply not take a joint hit at an enemy that is down just out of principle. The audacity and scale of Trump's actions have also changed what getting away means. If Biden's or Harris's scandal was about dozens of precision strikes against Iranian security forces during mass protests against Iran's current horrific regime, they are getting away with it unless they allow Iran to succeed in a major response. Even better if they make it seem as if they are pushing negotiations forward under added pressure. Assuming this kind of competence may be a mistake, I admit.
It is also important to remember the response to the campus protestors. Why would the same narrative useful fools not work for people criticising a successful operation against Iran? Especially against any Democrat. With Maduro and Khamenei, there already exists the notion that they were so evil that there was just a need to get rid of them, even at a high cost.
If Republicans are a mad cult, then they are going to hate Democrats regardless and are unlikely to vote for Democrats, making caring about them quite pointless. You could not get away with anything with them. However, if there are some other kinds of Republican voters, then wouldn't they like that Democrats did not bend under pressure from the woke left but instead took joint action with an important ally? They, of course, would be unlikely to admit such qualities in Democrats.
To me, the big fear seems to be a bloody land war and a long occupation, rather than the fear of causing a huge mess or tipping the regional balance in favour of some ally. The huge mess is only feared as a transition to the former. Just blobing a missile at an enemy seems much more acceptable. Drone strikes became a practice for this reason. Clear objectives, a limited scope, and a short timeframe are already common talking points. No killing leaders. No regime changes. Only mowing the grass. However, Republicans are just very incompetent as always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-_ZVIBXIAAEk0E.jpg)
