|
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 March 08 2026 12:02 dyhb wrote:It needs a little more follow-up reporting, since that particular one is based on a single detainee's story. The rest is truly heartbreaking stories and claims that needs prompt congressional inquiry and response.
I don’t know if you have noticed but Congress is full of spineless sycophants that will definitely not launch an inquiry on any of the cruelties of the very fine people they take orders from.
That’s why we are where we are, because of they had any principles, ethics or sense of duty, they would have removed that orange twat from power a long time ago.
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
On March 08 2026 20:18 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2026 23:02 WombaT wrote: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. like the 20k who died in Iran and accomplished nothing?
They came up against a regime willing to crush them
My point was without the will to potentially die en masse, whether you have guns or not is immaterial as you won’t do anything without that will.
And if the will of a regime to crush a movement isn’t there, whether it’s armed or not won’t really be a factor there either.
I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive.
|
On March 08 2026 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2026 12:02 dyhb wrote:It needs a little more follow-up reporting, since that particular one is based on a single detainee's story. The rest is truly heartbreaking stories and claims that needs prompt congressional inquiry and response. I don’t know if you have noticed but Congress is full of spineless sycophants that will definitely not launch an inquiry on any of the cruelties of the very fine people they take orders from. That’s why we are where we are, because of they had any principles, ethics or sense of duty, they would have removed that orange twat from power a long time ago. We're less than one week removed from a Congressional hearing that resulted in the firing of the DHS Secretary and the institution of body cameras on MN ICE officers. That's a pretty concrete result of an actual inquiry.
The Department of Homeland Security is still not funded even during a war with Iran, due to Democrat filibuster in the Senate.
Obviously not up to impeaching and removing the president, which has been more of a popularity question since Clinton dodged his, but actual inquiries and very clear results. The more direct consequence of a lame Congress now would be the Democrats taking power after the 2026 Midterm Elections and holding funding up at federal departments for lack of transparency in their hearings, impeachment probes, contempt hearings, and all the rest. I'm speaking within the constitutional limits on power of elected leaders short of a vote presented to the people, since other government structures do allow for a vote of no confidence and immediate consequences.
|
United States43659 Posts
You have the timeline wrong there. The Democrats didn't block the DHS funding during a wartime, they blocked it during peacetime due to legitimate concerns over how the DHS was using their money. Then during the block the administration initiated an illegal war.
The war came later. The policy of there being a war with no DHS funding is the Republican policy, not the Democrat policy. The Democrats were already doing their thing during peace, they didn't suddenly decide to hold the nation hostage during a war. The Republicans took an existing situation of no DHS funding and added a war to it, creating the combination of war plus no funding. If you're refused funding you can't just attack another sovereign nation and then go "well now you have to give me the funding or else you're creating a security risk".
|
|
|
On March 09 2026 01:05 KwarK wrote:
You have the timeline wrong there. The Democrats didn't block the DHS funding during a wartime, they blocked it during peacetime due to legitimate concerns over how the DHS was using their money. Then during the block the administration initiated an illegal war.
The war came later. The policy of there being a war with no DHS funding is the Republican policy, not the Democrat policy. The Democrats were already doing their thing during peace, they didn't suddenly decide to hold the nation hostage during a war. The Republicans took an existing situation of no DHS funding and added a war to it, creating the combination of war plus no funding. If you're refused funding you can't just attack another sovereign nation and then go "well now you have to give me the funding or else you're creating a security risk".
This thought process would all hinge on peacetime not being a security risk, which is the opposite of how security works. "There can't be any issues with not funding Pearl harbor, since the US isn't in any world wars right now."
Also is Russia a sovereign nation?
|
United States43659 Posts
On March 09 2026 01:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 01:05 KwarK wrote:
You have the timeline wrong there. The Democrats didn't block the DHS funding during a wartime, they blocked it during peacetime due to legitimate concerns over how the DHS was using their money. Then during the block the administration initiated an illegal war.
The war came later. The policy of there being a war with no DHS funding is the Republican policy, not the Democrat policy. The Democrats were already doing their thing during peace, they didn't suddenly decide to hold the nation hostage during a war. The Republicans took an existing situation of no DHS funding and added a war to it, creating the combination of war plus no funding. If you're refused funding you can't just attack another sovereign nation and then go "well now you have to give me the funding or else you're creating a security risk". This thought process would all hinge on peacetime not being a security risk, which is the opposite of how security works. "There can't be any issues with not funding Pearl harbor, since the US isn't in any world wars right now." Also is Russia a sovereign nation?
I’ve already apologized for my suggestion that there was a dumb post competition. Why are you still competing?
|
On March 09 2026 01:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 01:22 oBlade wrote:On March 09 2026 01:05 KwarK wrote:
You have the timeline wrong there. The Democrats didn't block the DHS funding during a wartime, they blocked it during peacetime due to legitimate concerns over how the DHS was using their money. Then during the block the administration initiated an illegal war.
The war came later. The policy of there being a war with no DHS funding is the Republican policy, not the Democrat policy. The Democrats were already doing their thing during peace, they didn't suddenly decide to hold the nation hostage during a war. The Republicans took an existing situation of no DHS funding and added a war to it, creating the combination of war plus no funding. If you're refused funding you can't just attack another sovereign nation and then go "well now you have to give me the funding or else you're creating a security risk". This thought process would all hinge on peacetime not being a security risk, which is the opposite of how security works. "There can't be any issues with not funding Pearl harbor, since the US isn't in any world wars right now." Also is Russia a sovereign nation? I’ve already apologized for my suggestion that there was a dumb post competition. Why are you still competing?
Correct, Russia is sovereign. Can we go to war with them to save Zelensky? No, because of that Oppenheimer thing you think Iran should have to protect itself from the evil Republicans.
Does Iran give/sell drones to Russia? Yes. Can we go to war with them instead? Yes, because their sovereignty is conditioned on them not doing things like that. Just like you think Trump's legitimacy is contingent on him not starting "illegal" wars against people who give drones to Putin to invade Ukraine.
Their sovereignty could alternatively be removed by a nice fancy formal vote of the international community, but by the time the international community became functional enough to actually add their air of legitimacy to the affair, it would be too late for anyone with power and ability to actually act on the decision.
Step 1 of sovereignty is borders which blocking DHS funding directly affects. "Sovereign" is clearly not what matters to you.
|
United States24756 Posts
On March 09 2026 01:16 Manit0u wrote:
Supposedly USS Abraham Lincoln was also hit. Can't really find a confirmation for this though.
Where did you hear this? Separate from the days-old reports?
|
On March 09 2026 01:39 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 01:16 Manit0u wrote:
Supposedly USS Abraham Lincoln was also hit. Can't really find a confirmation for this though. Where did you hear this? Separate from the days-old reports?
I believe I've just stumbled on people repeating old news as I was trying to find some proof to the claim but was unable to do so.
What's interesting though is that it seems Israel has issued some form of gag order or blackout over the internet as any news coming from the area have almost stopped. I wonder if it has anything to do with the iron dome running out of interceptors and more attacks getting through or something else but it definitely seems like info from the region is being suppressed.
|
We need to fund the DHS so they can go back to executing American civilians in the street like they're supposed to. What if Iran kills American civilians while their funding is suspended? That would be worse, for some reason.
|
United States43659 Posts
On March 09 2026 01:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 01:24 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2026 01:22 oBlade wrote:On March 09 2026 01:05 KwarK wrote:
You have the timeline wrong there. The Democrats didn't block the DHS funding during a wartime, they blocked it during peacetime due to legitimate concerns over how the DHS was using their money. Then during the block the administration initiated an illegal war.
The war came later. The policy of there being a war with no DHS funding is the Republican policy, not the Democrat policy. The Democrats were already doing their thing during peace, they didn't suddenly decide to hold the nation hostage during a war. The Republicans took an existing situation of no DHS funding and added a war to it, creating the combination of war plus no funding. If you're refused funding you can't just attack another sovereign nation and then go "well now you have to give me the funding or else you're creating a security risk". This thought process would all hinge on peacetime not being a security risk, which is the opposite of how security works. "There can't be any issues with not funding Pearl harbor, since the US isn't in any world wars right now." Also is Russia a sovereign nation? I’ve already apologized for my suggestion that there was a dumb post competition. Why are you still competing? Correct, Russia is sovereign. Can we go to war with them to save Zelensky? No, because of that Oppenheimer thing you think Iran should have to protect itself from the evil Republicans. Does Iran give/sell drones to Russia? Yes. Can we go to war with them instead? Yes, because their sovereignty is conditioned on them not doing things like that. Just like you think Trump's legitimacy is contingent on him not starting "illegal" wars against people who give drones to Putin to invade Ukraine. Their sovereignty could alternatively be removed by a nice fancy formal vote of the international community, but by the time the international community became functional enough to actually add their air of legitimacy to the affair, it would be too late for anyone with power and ability to actually act on the decision. Step 1 of sovereignty is borders which blocking DHS funding directly affects. "Sovereign" is clearly not what matters to you.
You're so fucking needy man.
|
On March 09 2026 00:24 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 07 2026 23:02 WombaT wrote: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. like the 20k who died in Iran and accomplished nothing? + Show Spoiler +They came up against a regime willing to crush them
My point was without the will to potentially die en masse, whether you have guns or not is immaterial as you won’t do anything without that will.
And if the will of a regime to crush a movement isn’t there, whether it’s armed or not won’t really be a factor there either. + Show Spoiler +I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive.
People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference.
Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés.
If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China).
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
On March 09 2026 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 00:24 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 07 2026 23:02 WombaT wrote: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. like the 20k who died in Iran and accomplished nothing? + Show Spoiler +They came up against a regime willing to crush them
My point was without the will to potentially die en masse, whether you have guns or not is immaterial as you won’t do anything without that will.
And if the will of a regime to crush a movement isn’t there, whether it’s armed or not won’t really be a factor there either. + Show Spoiler +I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive. People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference. Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés. If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China).
As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics, I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism.
|
More exciting fan fiction, totally on point….
But in real news Mojtaba Khamenei is the new supreme leader.
|
On March 09 2026 07:15 Billyboy wrote:
More exciting fan fiction, totally on point….
But in real news Mojtaba Khamenei is the new supreme leader.
I see the US are keeping up the Papal tradition by covering Tehran in smoke for the occasion.
|
On March 08 2026 22:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 07 2026 23:02 WombaT wrote: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. like the 20k who died in Iran and accomplished nothing? Them having guns wouldn't have helped. It'd just have meant the IRGC needed to use their tanks. But if the IRGC was willing to kill 10k+ of its own citizens, they would've done the same if those citizens were armed. Iranian opposition doesn't fail because they aren't sufficiently armed. It fails because the government brutally crushes any attempt at organising the opposition. That isn't because they don't have guns. There's no doubt a perfectly functional black market in Iran where a determined Partizan could buy all the Kalashnikovs they could want. But that doesn't mean they can stop the IRGC from breaking down their door in the middle of the night and disappearing their entire family. If the Iranian regime had allowed the opposition to organize, it'd probably have looked a lot more like Syria.
Yes if millions of anti-regime protestors were armed it would have gone a much different way than simply 20k+ massacred in like a week.
It exactly means that the IRGC can't break down their door in the middle of the night without a shoot out that if the neighborhood is organized its going to be a hell and evolve into a civil war where military splits etc.
Yes it would have looked like Syria, and Syria would have looked different if things didnt escalate to that degree because people were defenseless.
|
On March 08 2026 22:35 LightSpectra wrote:
Afghanistan is a country of est. 40 million and the NATO mission committed no more than 18,000 troops at a time to holding it. The total U. S. armed forces plus reserves is over 2,000,000 people, so the security force in Afghanistan is about 0.009% of what you're calling "the full force of the US military".
there werent 40 million taliban combatants and the RoE would be very differnt, the US military can't just carpet bomb Los Angeles to kill armed citizens, the more the military escalates aggression the more internal turnmoil within it ranks happen, soldiers aren't going to blow up their own families, thats how civil war factions are formed.
What Afghanistan proved is that no matter how many planes and tanks you have to control a population you need boots on the ground and people to surrender, unless you are willing to obliterate them which isn't an option in a civil war.
|
On March 09 2026 07:15 Billyboy wrote:
More exciting fan fiction, totally on point….
But in real news Mojtaba Khamenei is the new supreme leader.
I wonder if the political endgame is the same as what appears in Venezuela with Delcy Rodriguez, letting the regime members to walk out with their riches to avoid civil war, the Iranian government seems far more entrenched than the Venezuelan one but who knows, hopefully that happens. As much as It disgusts me to let these criminals get away its the best outcome for the Iranan ppl.
|
On March 09 2026 10:47 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 07:15 Billyboy wrote:
More exciting fan fiction, totally on point….
But in real news Mojtaba Khamenei is the new supreme leader. I wonder if the political endgame is the same as what appears in Venezuela with Delcy Rodriguez, letting the regime members to walk out with their riches to avoid civil war, the Iranian government seems far more entrenched than the Venezuelan one but who knows, hopefully that happens. As much as It disgusts me to let these criminals get away its the best outcome for the Iranan ppl.
The best outcome for Iranian people is when they get to overthrow their government, put in place a temporary one that will call the elections and pick a normal government for a change. All the while putting up enough fight that US and Israel won't want to engage them again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
