EPTYou think we should all be completely outraged that the guy who posted this got a fine? Might be time to find some real problems.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5578
| 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 | ||
|
Billyboy
1960 Posts
You think we should all be completely outraged that the guy who posted this got a fine? Might be time to find some real problems. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6275 Posts
On March 20 2026 01:46 LightSpectra wrote: When Barack Obama suspended sanctions on Iran, child molester Donald Trump said "The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars". So unless you're willing to admit he's a bald-faced liar, I'll continue to refer to the two things interchangeably. Normally I would but I think it's funnier to let you continue to adamantly believe something Donald Trump said 10 years ago just to spite me. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2816 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On March 20 2026 02:03 Billyboy wrote: You think we should all be completely outraged that the guy who posted this got a fine? Might be time to find some real problems. I think he was being sarcastic. | ||
|
Billyboy
1960 Posts
That would make sense. Completely missed it. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6275 Posts
On March 20 2026 02:05 LightSpectra wrote: I don't think normally you would admit the adjudicated rapist you voted for President is a bald-faced liar. Actually, I suspect you would say literally anything as some sort of obfuscation around that, like you literally just did above. You just said lifting a sanction is the same as the US paying cash to a country because "adjudicated rapist" Donald Trump said so once. You don't believe or understand a thing. There's nothing left but le ebin irony. Repeating "pedo" ad infinitum is no longer enough to obscure that. Lifting sanctions doesn't transfer money. It's not a payment by the US. In Iran's case the actual cash delivery was a different $1.something billion that was actually paid from frozen funds. (That was actually true.) China already doesn't follow US sanctions. They have already bought Iranian oil since before the war. It's not that the war broke out and Iran just launched their 5D chess world shadow fleet as part of their death to America plan. Now it may be separately an issue that China buys Iranian oil, but it's the exact same issue as 2 weeks and 2 months and 2 years ago. But if the oil isn't delivered, oil futures go up because people need oil delivered anyway, from somewhere else. Buying oil across the world is not like buying something on ebay and sitting and waiting for it to arrive. Oil is fungible within its categories. When someone supplies oil they are not supplying Barrel #24332843, they are supplying a barrel of a kind of oil. Buyers along the chain are not waiting for Barrel #24332843 to keep the whole conga line moving, they are waiting for a barrel of a kind of oil. They will get it one way or another, even if that means taking delivery from narrower supply at higher prices. If you waive sanctions for oil that's already afloat, all it means is those existing barrels can be delivered from wider supply at lower prices. Not that Iran is suddenly rolling the Monopoly dice while nobody else is looking and passing Go 5 times a second. Until that oil is offloaded, the tankers carrying it also can't load anything else to keep global supply moving. That also plays its own role in driving up oil futures. There are limited tankers and the ones tied up with sanctioned oil need to be kept moving, like by unloading and going somewhere else next time. If anyone against the Iran war is capable of handling the devil's advocate hypothetical "if the US decided to effectively prosecute a war with Iran, should it:" i) blow up every tanker, refinery, pipeline, and so on and leave the country with no energy infrastructure or main exports 2) temporarily waive sanctions to counteract the enemy's strategy to hold world energy hostage γ) do nothing d) other If the answer is "I can't think of what to do, maybe there's no right answer," then probably realize you shouldn't let a country be in a position where they think they can try to hold world energy hostage to begin with, when basically the whole world except for 2 countries is otherwise too meek to do anything to interrupt their plans to annihilate Israel. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2816 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
Also the world isn't allowing Iran to have a stranglehold on energy, geography is. The world didn't allow the hydrocarbons to be near Iran, we didn't get to pick that. The world didn't decide that floating ships on water would be a good way of moving heavy things long distances, physics did. The world didn't allow there to be a strait, there was a strait whether or not the world chose there to be. But in any case, your premise is flawed. You're essentially arguing that any time a country has a potential to harm other countries should a red line be crossed they're automatically holding the world hostage and must be destroyed. That includes every nuclear power, including Israel. There are a great many countries that have guns pointed at much more valuable hostages than Iran does and you have no problem with them. So presumably it isn't an issue with the leverage that holding something hostage gives you, your issue is with them actually using it. Except Iran has been extremely responsible with their leverage. They've maintained a long standing policy of using it only as an absolute last resort in the event of an attack by an overwhelming military force intending regime change. They didn't even use it last year when they were attacked by the US and Israel, they swallowed that attack and didn't use their MAD deterrent. If this is a hostage scenario, as you describe it, then the hostage taker seems incredibly reluctant to actually shoot a hostage. You can break in and kick him around a bunch and he still won't do it. It's only if you're on the verge of actually killing him that he warns that you're getting close to forcing him to kill hostages and it's only after you keep going that he starts. And that is why the world is blaming the US and Israel. This is the kind of card that Iran cannot use frivolously because to do so would create the situation you describe where they're abusing their geography to extort the whole world. In a world where every week they call up the UN and demand another cookie or else they'll close the strait you would have a point. In that world Iranian hostage taking would be intolerable. However in our world they've been extremely reluctant to actually use their leverage. They understand that it is MAD, a last resort, and they have positioned their red lines accordingly. It is the US and Israel who decided to take a look at these clearly defined red lines that were positioned reasonably according to Iranian national interest and smash them anyway. If your argument is that Iran cannot be allowed to have this leverage then my response is "why not?", they've been restrained in using it, the previous situation was tolerable. If you plan to argue against the idea of a nation destablizing the world, arming proxy forces, causing conflict in the Middle East etc. while threatening to destroy everyone if they're ever held accountable for their crimes then you may not like where that leads. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1432 Posts
On March 20 2026 00:16 misirlou wrote: The "joke" is only "funny" because jews were indeed gased. Would that be part of your ideal world as well? There is no context where "you're only trying to be funny" because the "joke" would not have any sort of funniness or punchline if we leave out the historic context . It merely becomes a "wishing death on someone" sentence - How is that an ideal world funny thing to say? - I found blonde jokes funny, once upon a time - then I realized that their context is putting women down - with all it's repetitions and laughs it only indoctrinated and entrenched the patriarchy further little by little - it further's the agenda of those people who say women are only getting jobs for their looks and not their qualifications - A precursor to DEI if you will. I don't laugh at those jokes anymore - does that mean I think every comedian that made a blonde joke has an agenda or is wilfuly pushing it? no. but I wish they'd see the problem as I do I'm not sure how, but you seemingly managed to miss the part where I put "trying" in that sentence. It's not funny to me, it's cringe shit coming from right-wing edgelord, that shit was all the rage in 2018, the peek of "cancel culture". I still don't think the guy wanted to incite violence or call for Jews to be gassed, because it was done in a context of a stupid joke. I don't think we should use laws to punish people with a shitty sense of humor, it fuels their stupid grievance mongering and gives them arguments when they attack "the left" for being pro censorship. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5836 Posts
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened? 2. Do we have a clear and attainable objective? 3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? 4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? 5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? 6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? 7. Is the action supported by the American people? 8. Do we have genuine broad international support? Colin Powell's policy regarding military interventions. Trump's clown show failed to address every single one of those questions. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2816 Posts
On March 20 2026 03:21 maybenexttime wrote: Colin Powell's policy regarding military interventions. Trump's clown show failed to address every single one of those questions. A solid zero out of eight. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is now universally considered to have been a blunder, satisfied at least nos. 2, 7, and 8 (edit: and 3? maybe?). | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On March 20 2026 03:29 LightSpectra wrote: A solid zero out of eight. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is now universally considered to have been a blunder, satisfied at least nos. 2, 7, and 8. The Pentagon definitely analyzed the risks. They knew. I think we got the truth on day 1 when Trump explained that Israel just announced they were going to do it and informed Trump that the US would be coming too. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2816 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17682 Posts
This marks about the 5th time Israel has gone off and allegedly done stuff Trump did not approve of. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6275 Posts
On March 20 2026 03:21 maybenexttime wrote: Colin Powell's policy regarding military interventions. Trump's clown show failed to address every single one of those questions. Colin Powell's own life and times in war seems to have reduced his commitment to those questions to "Pretend they are all answered correctly and cross your fingers that it works out in the end." Which for him worked out to exactly the odds of a coinflip. Besides which the list is bullshit for an articulable number of reasons. 1. Is a vital national security interest threatened? "Vital" is a weasel word doing all the lifting. And why can't you defend the United States for a reason that's less than "vital?" 2. Do we have a clear and attainable objective? Generally fair. 3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Question is rigged for the same reason as #6. 4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? "Fully" is what standard? 5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Sounds like normal contingency hedging until you realize "plausible exit strategy" means "defeat plan." The US had no "plausible exit strategy" for WW2 and Korea. Yet it had a plausible exit for Vietnam (pack up and leave). That doesn't mean Vietnam was better on this question. It just means not losing wars is better. 6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Clashes with the Rumsfeld Corollary of Unknown Unknowns that literally this question is not satisfiable. You cannot know if you fully considered something. Besides which, you can accept fully considered negative consequences even if they're greater than unconsidered negative consequences. 7. Is the action supported by the American people? Vague and actually not as important as you might think. We don't take referenda on wars. Entering WW2 earlier would not have been a mistake even though it took until after Pearl Harbor for public support to seesaw. 8. Do we have genuine broad international support? 1) In many cases the US doesn't need any international support. 2) When you need it, it doesn't have to be broad. US doesn't need Russia and China on board for Iran, or the UK's go-ahead for Venezuela. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On March 20 2026 03:43 oBlade wrote: And why can't you defend the United States Is that what the US is doing in Iran? | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3304 Posts
On March 20 2026 03:12 Jankisa wrote: I'm not sure how, but you seemingly managed to miss the part where I put "trying" in that sentence. It's not funny to me, it's cringe shit coming from right-wing edgelord, that shit was all the rage in 2018, the peek of "cancel culture". I still don't think the guy wanted to incite violence or call for Jews to be gassed, because it was done in a context of a stupid joke. I don't think we should use laws to punish people with a shitty sense of humor, it fuels their stupid grievance mongering and gives them arguments when they attack "the left" for being pro censorship. My bad. I also wasn't trying to pass judgment, while it does read a bit that way, it's more of a plead for people to be mindful of societal and historical contexts. I still don't think the guy wanted to incite violence or call for Jews to be gassed, because it was done in a context of a stupid joke. I don't think we should use laws to punish people with a shitty sense of humor, it fuels their stupid grievance mongering and gives them arguments when they attack "the left" for being pro censorship. Even if he didn't, thats not the point. He fans the flames, validates and provides humour particularly aimed at people less well intended than him. People who deserve nothing except the harm that they have inflicted to be inflicted back onto them. Karma if you will. I don't care about their stupid grievance mongering. It's stupid. It's like arguing with your child. Do you care about whatever arguments they throw for whatever thing they dont want to do? We can't let the unintelligent be in charge of anything. Sit the fuck back down and let the grown ups do the governing. He was not punished for a shitty sense of humour. He was punished for hate speech. That he dressed that hate speech with a shitty sense of humour is besides the point but the right wingers will have you believe otherwise. We don't have to argue their nonsense | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17682 Posts
On March 20 2026 04:17 misirlou wrote: My bad. I also wasn't trying to pass judgment, while it does read a bit that way, it's more of a plead for people to be mindful of societal and historical contexts. I think Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David intentionally paint the modern jew in a very negative light because #1) they believe it ..and i agree with them. they go over the top for comedic effect. #2) its a pressure release valve so that antisemitism never festers. i prefer people don't walk around on egg shells. if my feelings get hurt once and a while... who cares? On March 20 2026 02:03 Billyboy wrote: You think we should all be completely outraged that the guy who posted this got a fine? Might be time to find some real problems. Tim Whatley says to Jerry Seinfeld ... "i spent all my time in the sauna ... i got a jewish work out" I don't want Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld, and Nathan Fielder to fear getting fined for telling jewish jokes. See #2 above. the humour is a pressure release valve so that antisemitism doesn't fester under the surface. The 3 jews i listed... they know what they are doing... nothing they do is a coincidence or accident. Every syllable is calculated... every weight shift, every body posture.. its all carefully choreographed. If the guy who got fined wants to convert for a day so he can have "joke immunity" like Tim Whatley did in the episode i posted... .all the better. I don't want governments like Germany banning Nathan Fielder episodes. Fortunately, Fielder got the last laugh | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5185 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On March 20 2026 04:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the humour is a pressure release valve so that antisemitism doesn't fester under the surface. Of course, we make jokes about Jewish stereotypes so that antisemitism goes away. It's only a pity that jokes about Jews didn't exist before the 1930s, the entire Holocaust could have been avoided. | ||
| ||
