EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5540
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2822 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22447 Posts
In the practical world we know for a fact that Democrats instead signed a deal with Iran to halt its nuclear program so they didn't have to attack it. We don't have to speculate. Obama's deal happened, we know what the Democrats would do, they already did it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46179 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
1963 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46179 Posts
On March 07 2026 12:25 Billyboy wrote: My bold prediction is that distracting your voters from going completely against your main campaign promise by going against his second biggest campaign promise is not going to work out well for him and his third term asperations. I hope he doesn't have any third-term aspirations because he would absolutely win the Republican primary again. I'm not sure how effectively the Constitution would be enforced against him in that instance, so it would definitely be way easier/simpler if he just decides on his own to not bother running anymore. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20166 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12118 Posts
Coal plant utilization in the U.S. has dropped significantly, with coal generating only about 15-16% of electricity in 2024, down from over 50% in 2001. The average capacity factor for coal plants has declined to roughly 42% as of 2023. While over 29,000 MW of capacity closures have been delayed recently due to reliability concerns, most plants are expected to close by 2039. Key Trends in U.S. Coal Plant Utilization:
To tie this into politics per thread: It is also part of the core Trump voters, Democrats tried reeducation programs. But blaming immigrants was more popular, so ignoring this increasing demographic is likely in Democrats interest (if they were wholly pragmatic, but they are still somewhat emphatic so will still care and lose in other areas due to it). Second point, sadly the AI that summarized that on a simple google search will also extend the lives of those plants due to increased energy needs. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22447 Posts
On March 07 2026 18:30 Yurie wrote: We already saw this during Trump 1 when he campaigned on bringing back coal jobs and the coal companies themselves didn't even want to go along with it.Well old positive US news summarized by AI: Coal plant utilization in the U.S. has dropped significantly, with coal generating only about 15-16% of electricity in 2024, down from over 50% in 2001. The average capacity factor for coal plants has declined to roughly 42% as of 2023. While over 29,000 MW of capacity closures have been delayed recently due to reliability concerns, most plants are expected to close by 2039. Key Trends in U.S. Coal Plant Utilization:
To tie this into politics per thread: It is also part of the core Trump voters, Democrats tried reeducation programs. But blaming immigrants was more popular, so ignoring this increasing demographic is likely in Democrats interest (if they were wholly pragmatic, but they are still somewhat emphatic so will still care and lose in other areas due to it). Second point, sadly the AI that summarized that on a simple google search will also extend the lives of those plants due to increased energy needs. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
I used to be anti-gun ownership but now I'm very pro because I've realized that there only two mechanism to get rid of this kind of dictators, well armed citizens or foreign intervention, and the 2nd usually gets very ugly quick. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46179 Posts
On March 07 2026 19:19 baal wrote: It's wild how powerless a country is against a dictator who controls the army and is willing to mass kill his own citizens to remain in power. I used to be anti-gun ownership but now I'm very pro because I've realized that there only two mechanism to get rid of this kind of dictators, well armed citizens or foreign intervention, and the 2nd usually gets very ugly quick. Doesn't the United States's scenario refute - not support - this pro-gun stance though? American gun owners can't fight a real army. Or do you mean that more Americans should try assassinating Trump? | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4557 Posts
To conclude that owning guns is the answer after all of this is wild to me. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18348 Posts
On March 07 2026 20:01 Laurens wrote: Can you give some examples of "well armed citizens" overthrowing a dictator in recent history? To conclude that owning guns is the answer after all of this is wild to me. If well-armed citizens includes the army, there's plenty of examples of the army overthrowing dictators. Usually to install a new dictator, whose first order of business is usually to use that army in the disappearing of anybody who might disagree with what just happened. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22447 Posts
On March 07 2026 19:19 baal wrote: Civilians meet a tank, GL with that...It's wild how powerless a country is against a dictator who controls the army and is willing to mass kill his own citizens to remain in power. I used to be anti-gun ownership but now I'm very pro because I've realized that there only two mechanism to get rid of this kind of dictators, well armed citizens or foreign intervention, and the 2nd usually gets very ugly quick. If a dictator controls the military and is willing to kill it will not matter in the slightest whether or not the population is armed. This is not 1775, a few people with hunting rifles are not going to stand up against a professional armed force. Every time in recent memory we have seen a population out a dictator by themselves it has been because the military decided they were not willing to mass execute the civilian population. I would state that an armed population makes it harder for a to rise up against a dictator because a military is more likely to be willing to supress an actively shooting armed militia then an unarmed civilian protest. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6278 Posts
On March 07 2026 00:50 LightSpectra wrote: 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. It's the same war. Iran funded and equipped Hamas. Why was Iran at the negotiating table? They create threats for leverage. Why were they STILL at the negotiating table? Resolving those threats undoes the leverage. Stalling keeps it. It's like saying someone with a suicide vest was at the negotiating table. There is only a negotiating table to begin with because the person caused it by building and wearing the suicide vest. It's all their invention. It's all their fault. If they're far enough away from others, shoot them. You can only negotiate with rational actors and someone's not a rational actor if they don't value their own self-preservation, or view their own death and destruction as a victory. Whatever you may think of Gaza, missing a military target and causing collateral damage is probably different than an act of "indiscriminately" bombing civilian areas or let's hear about Iran's war crimes in where their missiles have been targeted and hit. Or is a regime's sovereignty just absolute forever? Is there anything that can invalidate it? On March 07 2026 09:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Not to mention that Trump attacked Iran because of the Epstein files, and a hypothetical President Kamala Harris would not start a war to distract the public from child molestation, because she doesn't rape people. Administrations involving Kamala Harris lose more American lives just leaving a country than the US has lost through decapitating an entire hostile regime. | ||
|
Vivax
22406 Posts
On March 07 2026 20:11 Acrofales wrote: If well-armed citizens includes the army, there's plenty of examples of the army overthrowing dictators. Usually to install a new dictator, whose first order of business is usually to use that army in the disappearing of anybody who might disagree with what just happened. Depends on the culture. It‘s not necessary to use deadly violence, but it sure would be necessary to expose that this is the shell of a former democracy clinging to its own survival, at this point. The entire political apparatus seems to be entangled in paralyzing webs. Might need a hard reset and the removal of oligarch influence… It‘s obvious they‘ll just keep doing whatever they want, and add a new one on top every time until it‘s not even considered abnormal anymore. Difficult to insulate from all that. Let‘s see for how long one has the luxury of voicing an opinion. Don‘t they already have more than anyone normal would need to live a luxurious life ? And a DOJ on strike. A congress whose approval doesn‘t even matter. It‘s a video game at this point. Are they even sober ? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27148 Posts
On March 07 2026 19:19 baal wrote: It's wild how powerless a country is against a dictator who controls the army and is willing to mass kill his own citizens to remain in power. I used to be anti-gun ownership but now I'm very pro because I've realized that there only two mechanism to get rid of this kind of dictators, well armed citizens or foreign intervention, and the 2nd usually gets very ugly quick. Folks aren’t powerless, they just have to be willing to potentially die. I don’t know how much having guns changes this calculus really. Perhaps a little. If folks aren’t willing to potentially die, it’s largely moot whether they’re armed or not. If the relevant institutions aren’t willing to crush such a movement, same thing. | ||
|
Razyda
1037 Posts
On March 07 2026 19:19 baal wrote: It's wild how powerless a country is against a dictator who controls the army and is willing to mass kill his own citizens to remain in power. I used to be anti-gun ownership but now I'm very pro because I've realized that there only two mechanism to get rid of this kind of dictators, well armed citizens or foreign intervention, and the 2nd usually gets very ugly quick. Finally people start to understand. On March 07 2026 19:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Doesn't the United States's scenario refute - not support - this pro-gun stance though? American gun owners can't fight a real army. Or do you mean that more Americans should try assassinating Trump? Thats not how it works, armies arent made of robots and would generally split support, although admittedly given that this is most conservative institution in the world split wouldnt favour the left at all. And yes American gun owners can fight real army, it is not like governmet would send bombers at Washington for example. On March 07 2026 20:01 Laurens wrote: Can you give some examples of "well armed citizens" overthrowing a dictator in recent history? To conclude that owning guns is the answer after all of this is wild to me. Batista. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1160 Posts
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. Trump appointing Colonel Kegstand to "Harbinger of the Armageddon" Stock Footage: ![[image loading]](https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Boss-Nass-Jar-Jar-Binks-1024x576.jpeg) I mean they both can't come up with an explanation of WHY the US now is in a war.. when their previous bombings were declared a super duper huge success. Using billions worth of equipment and ordonance they made big holes in the ground, declaring all iranian threats to be dealt with forever. Only to come back months later, waging a full scale war on the whistle of the guy who runs the country who has the intelligence service with the ties to the child sex trafficker that died mysteriously in high sec prison but the POTUS knew very well and potentially bought rape-dates with teenagers from. But it's working well... the whole middle east is now eating Shahed drones for breakfast... if they hit desalination plants the desert.. will become uninhabitable ...again.. .. and all the oil money in the world, can't make it rain in Riad... | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2833 Posts
On March 07 2026 20:01 Laurens wrote: Can you give some examples of "well armed citizens" overthrowing a dictator in recent history? To conclude that owning guns is the answer after all of this is wild to me. Syria? | ||
|
Billyboy
1963 Posts
| ||
| ||
