|
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 |
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1241 Posts
On March 31 2026 11:17 micronesia wrote:
What's the point of trying to explain something to him? He doesn't understand what you just explained, Kwark, and he doesn't want to, unless it results in an immediate financial windfall for him.
Yeah I can easily imagine how this conversation might go.
Everyone else: "But this just leaves the Hormuz Strait in the hands of Iran, and goes against almost a century of US geopolitical policy"
Trump: "Ahh but you see, continuing losing is bad optics, looks very weak, we look like losers! Everyone hates the idea of sending in ground troops, people tell me that you know, everyone tells me they hate it. We'll just say we've achieved all our goals, very successful! Think of how much the market will go up once we announce that we stop spending all this money continuing a LOSING game"
|
If anything is going to get people using the 25th amendment to chuck him out, it's surrendering the Hormuz strait to Iran. But Vance is a fucking lunatic, so is that truly an improvement?
|
On March 31 2026 08:10 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 30 2026 04:32 Razyda wrote:On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:On March 29 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On March 28 2026 17:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 28 2026 16:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 28 2026 12:25 Razyda wrote:). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
Are you talking incitement to violence in the legal sense or in the colloquial sense? Either way, it's ridiculous. God forbid someone be correctly categorized as a despicable person. The Nazi / racist / rapist has already incited violence; calling out that person is the least we can do, and doing so is not inherently an incitement of violence. If the point is supposed to be that merely assigning an accurate label isn't going to change that person's beliefs or actions, then that's fair. We can't only assign a label and then walk away, because assigning the label - while hopefully accurate - doesn't fix the problem. But statements like "Trump is a racist" and "Trump is a rapist" are factually accurate and do not incite violence. If someone wanted to add an incitement of violence afterwards, like "Trump is a racist and ought to be murdered", then that tautologically incites violence, but not because of the accurate label "racist". One might also choose to make the argument that publicly assigning these accurate labels may not be the most effective form of communicating issues or a need for change, since these labels might make people defensive or hurt their feelings. But, again, that's not the same thing as claiming that calling a fascist "a fascist" is inciting violence. This is fun. That you I believe: On October 16 2025 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 16 2025 19:12 pmh wrote:
The democrats should stop focussing on the wrong things as distractions. They are beeing played like crazy.
Its easy to recognize the wrong things. Its what is most upvoted on the reddit politics forum and what is pushed artificially as centre of attention.
The epstein case in general , the ice stuff and now this nazi group chat which has at least 3-4 threads with botted upvotes on the reddit politics forum.
Its also easy to recognize the right things for the democrats to focus on. Its what has only 1 thread on reddit politics forum with little upvotes. Or its news which is even completely banned from discussing on the reddit politics forum while still clearly relevant (like all journalists walking out of the pentagon today. Which has zero threads on reddit politics forum).
Nazi group chat really. Is that what will turn public opinion? Trudeau has blackface pictures released nothing happend. Its not what the centre cares about.
The "left" needs to win over the centre. They will never get anywhere without the centre.
That is why all journalists walking out of pentagon is banned from discussion on reddit politics forum. Because it apeals to the centre,it is something the centre can get angry about.
That is also why ice and epstein is pushed on reddit poltics forum. Because the centre is not to unhappy in general with what ice claims to be doing,getting criminal illegals out. The centre also is not bussy with epstein which is basicly 3 year old news recycled and something that apeals to conspiracy theorists.
Its a lost case either way but still.
I don't think that it's necessarily "wrong" to point out that Trump allegedly raped children, that people are being attacked and abducted by an American gestapo, and that Republicans are racist and fascist... as long as other points are also being made (e.g., that the Republicans have shut down the government because they got caught removing healthcare from Americans). As long as a diverse number of topics are being covered (healthcare, living wages, taxes, education, etc.), then I don't mind also including the three you dismissed. Assuming your assertion about needing to win over the center is true, why do you think the center doesn't care about those three issues you listed? That also you: On November 28 2018 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 28 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:So I believe it might be worth reporting because the “OK” symbol has nothing to do with products being made in America. It recently has become a low key way people to show support for “White Power” and racism in general. Due to that, I don’t think taking that ticker in good faith is a smart move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_(gesture)#As_white_power_symbol I see, thank you! I'm also aware of it used in "the circle game" where if you make the sign below your waist and someone else looks at it, you get to punch them. Perhaps we should be proactive and start punching people that make this sign, just in case they're playing the circle game they're white supremacists. + Show Spoiler +I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit. spoiler part for easier read: "I'm only half joking, if this is indeed some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit." That also you but from now closed topic so cant quote properly: "His first amendment right to freedom of speech was obviously not violated just because he got assaulted by a random guy. Congress/ the federal government isn't part of the assault scenario. He got assaulted and what the assaulter did is illegal; if he were found, he'd be arrested. And he should be. But as far as whether or not people agree morally with punching a Nazi in the mouth... well, let's just say that both Captain America and Indiana Jones did it too, and surely people shouldn't be surprised that he was punched. I'd rather have a dialogue with the guy than punch him, but not everyone can control their anger against incendiary, toxic people. Also, his hate wasn't directed at me, so it's harder for me to relate to the kind of anger felt by those who are targeted, systemically oppressed, and constantly viewed as inferior." Dont take me wrong, it is just that for some it may seem that first you arguing that it is good to punch a "some alt-right/ white power/ Nazi-esque bullshit" , or taking "proactive stance" if you prefer to phrase it that way, and then encouraged people to call republicans (which I believe is 50+kk people in US) racists and fascists, and make sure to mix it up with other stuff, to make it look okay. On March 29 2026 00:35 WombaT wrote:On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
It is good that you disagreeing, because it opens discussion. Now I'll try to explain where you got it wrong. Which is back to what freedom of speech means. lets go with your analogy to comedy club. Somebody makes fun of him in his club and got banned from there (depending on the advertising it is kinda shitty, however I dont recall Musk saying you can say whatever you want on Twitter you wont be banned). Now this person goes to the club on the other side of the road and keeps making fun of him, and he leaves this person alone. Doesnt send police, doesnt sue, just ignore. This is what free speech is. Private person can act over what you say, but government shouldnt be able to.
He’s said many, many similar things though, sure not those exact, exact words perhaps. There’s also a wider issue here, which is namely that some of these platforms are so large, embedded and without particularly meaningful competition that they wield a hell of a lot of potential power. Should such platforms have to adopt certain standards, or perhaps citizens across the globe should have some ‘digital rights’? Hey perhaps that is a good direction of travel, or perhaps one may not and want to let the market decide. Now that problem isn’t remotely an exclusively Musk thing, we’ve seen this play out in many different places. Just a rather obvious example of it. I mean the guy didn’t even couch some actions in rules or terms of service violations, it simply was things he personally disliked in many instances. It ain’t good fam. My concern is that many of the folks banging on about free speech and the looney left for the past 15 years have gone rather quiet lately when there’s plenty of examples of what they were complaining about, from both private actors and the state, right there front and centre. On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
It really isnt. second part of your sentence simply makes you reasonable person, as only fools have no doubts. Did they? Because from what I have seen other posters for few pages feverishly argued that baal is wrong because count whatever wasn't jailed, but only fined, without realising that issue is whether police/court should get involved at all.
Baal was incorrect though. I’d agree that there’s a wider discussion that did get a bit buried in arguing that specific point. That said, it did happen and opinions did vary. I certainly recall myself and Drone arguing against state censure in this instance, possibly others did too. On March 28 2026 12:43 Razyda wrote:
Preconceptions? like, really? We are both on this forum long enough. from what I recall inciting violence through speech is something you are against? (my position is "direct" incitement of violence is free speech infringement I am willing to tolerate). Are you maybe thinking that calling people nazis, racists, child rapists, or fascists isnt inciting violence? Because you can hardly find more despicable beings than the one named (kinda, if I went back in time I would kill baby Hitler, because apparently nothing makes one goodder than killing innocent babies), and calling people this names can be considered as incitement of violence.
Lastly: you do realise that being called right winger on this forum is considered to be an offence, while being on the left is a virtue?
I mean, I wonder why that could be eh? At least within here it strikes me that folks are criticised more for bad arguments, or for holding specific positions, rather than specifically for being right leaning. And GH gets plenty of flak, more than basically anyone and is rather left wing A preconception that some in here are out to curtail free speech or whatever and then arguing from that place. Versus what I think is the case in this thread broadly where people generally wish to preserve free speech, but at a time there are big challenges to the structure of our societies by certain aspects of it. I think people use such terms way, way too liberally at times for sure, although I wouldn’t consider them direct incitements to violence or anything like that First part: I am not here to defend Musk, just pointed out the difference between free speech, as in keeping government out of it, and free speech as in everyone can say whatever they want and everyone has to be fine with that. With the former I am in full agreement with the latter not so much. As for platforms with a lot of power I already agreed with you on that one, it is just our solutions are different. I think your stance is given away by "adopt certain standards" which I believe mean you would like to see some regulations in a style: you cant have that, you should correct that. Sad truth is that this sort of solution would give more power to government and this platforms. My solution (you can either moderate, or be accountable, but no both) takes away power from this platforms. As such I believe my solution is better (funnily enough I also think this is what everyone happen to think "my solution is better" ) Part 2: Yeah he was, but what does that matter? Everyone knew what his point was, but decided to nitpick, on quite frankly, irrelevant bullshit, if thats not arguing in bad faith I dont know what is. And yes some people did engage honestly, but their post were drowned in bunch of irrelevant stuff, so i guess goal achieved... Part 3: This one is fun: "I mean, I wonder why that could be eh? At least within here it strikes me that folks are criticised more for bad arguments, or for holding specific positions, rather than specifically for being right leaning." And this specific positions, are they right or left leaning?  " And GH gets plenty of flak, more than basically anyone and is rather left wing" So the guy who is leftist, but doesnt sign up to approved narrative is your example? Let me get this clear, guy on the left, who happened to have his own views on what left should be doing is getting a lot of flak? Surely it is not evidence of "one approved narrative"? "A preconception that some in here are out to curtail free speech or whatever and then arguing from that place. Versus what I think is the case in this thread broadly where people generally wish to preserve free speech, but at a time there are big challenges to the structure of our societies by certain aspects of it. I think people use such terms way, way too liberally at times for sure, although I wouldn’t consider them direct incitements to violence or anything like that" "Broadly" is such a useful word isnt it? Broadly speaking all animals are equal, but bear is more equal. What is your position on misinformation, disinformation, or, what is funny word used to hide inconvenient truths? Malinformation, was it? Edit: @Wombat thank you for mentioning Drone I remembered I need to answer to him, it will be separate post though. Point 1:Fair enough if that’s your position. This isn’t the position of the many I was alluding to, but it’s unfair to lump you in with those of different beliefs. There’s a reason it’s called ‘cancel culture’ and not ‘cancelled by the government’ after all. I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols. If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots. I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem. Point 2:It may seem like nitpicking, I think sometimes the details are important if an argument springs from the details. To a degree I think doubling down also just leads to unproductive loops, when perhaps the idea itself merits discussion. Which I did say at the time. Point 3:What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example. Then you’ve got a bunch of stuff I just think is wrong, but ‘agree to disagree’ wrong, and there’s no real moral component there for me. Get to category three, well that’s stuff I do think I have a more high ground on. Bumming Trump, defending something one was massively against a week ago, defending things like ICE shootings. Yeah I’ll judge folks there, but it’s not because they’re right wing. A small government guy should be as opposed to Trump and ICE as I am, to take one example. There’s also just thread dynamics. Person A comes in and just discusses things, and sure there might be friction, it’s only natural. Person B goes all out to ‘own the libs’. They might have the same actual views but Person A will be treated much better than Person B. The Person B archetype swings in, posts like trash and then complains that they’re treated as such. But the problem there is that, not broader ideology "I don’t really have a preferred solution here as such that I think will necessarily work, it’s tricky as I’ve said. Ideally the private sector would adopt some standards and frameworks voluntarily, as we saw in the early days of the internet with things like the codification of open source standards and open protocols." There is couple of issues with this solution, 1st one "voluntarily" it simply means they can drop it on a whim. Second -obviously they are going to do it, it is like their wet dream, this is actually entire source of their power. This is what gives them aility to elevate opinions they like and bury ones they dont. "If you don’t have that, which we clearly don’t, then I’d be pro-regulation in some form. But I’d rather see that as an agreed framework across as many nations as possible, to lessen the possibilities of abuse if it were say, a single state like the US calling the shots. I’m also less concerned about hate speech than some because it gets tricky to define, for me it’s the misinformation and the algorithmic funnel that’s the big problem." So you are pro regulation in this case. Agreed framework never going to happen on it, as different countries have different laws and cultures. Quatar probably wont be ok with criticizing royal family or Islam, Germany would still want to fine people for offending politicians, Starmer would have a stroke if he found out that he cant arrest people for saying we love bacon, and can you imagine liberals in US if they were suddenly told that they are going to pay fines for offending politicians (particularly orange buffoons). To be fair US response would be probably the same across the political spectrum, at east while Trump is in charge. And who would decide what is "misinformation"? Notwithstanding that todays misinformation may be truth tomorrow, would you be really happy with Trump government deciding whats misinformation?As for algorithmic funnel I agree, I simply see algorithm as a part of moderation, because this is its realistic effect. Thats why section 230 is rubbish and needs to go. On March 29 2026 23:15 WombaT wrote:
Point 3:
What are the positions? There are a few traditionally right wing positions I personally agree with, and they live uneasily with my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview. I’d probably align more with Introvert on issues of religious liberty than those I tend to generally align with, to take one example.
Why would your positions sit uneasily with your worldview? Your positions are part of your worldview, where the uneasiness comes from? Why say "my mostly quite far left-leaning worldview" rather than "my worldview" why describe positions as left/right, rather than yours? Sometimes misinformation is just misinformation, like when trump said you could cure COVID with bleach. No one is advocating for a government department of censorship. Just some regulation about the content. For example, I'd be cool with any law that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice like "don't have medical professionals around when you're giving birth". First of all curing covid with bleach is not misinformation issue it is stupidity issue. Past that: you do realise that what you want "I'd be cool with any law that outlawed assholes producing content with potentially lethal advice" would result in outlawing antibleachers? Because, you know, if official stance is "cure covid with bleach" and you advocating against it, you actually killing people and should be outlawed?
Both you and dydh are making the same trivial argument as far as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong (I mean trivial in the mathematical sense, not in the unimportant sense):
We can't have new laws because your political opponents will abuse them.
This is a trivial argument because you can apply that line of reasoning to any new (or already existing) law. Essentially, it's not really about free speech, it's about enforcement and corruption, which kind of falls under the umbrella of "small government" arguments.
I must admit that arguing about what's the optimum "size" of the government is not a discussion I want to get into, so if this is your position, then I will just leave it here.
|
On March 31 2026 15:43 Acrofales wrote:
If anything is going to get people using the 25th amendment to chuck him out, it's surrendering the Hormuz strait to Iran. But Vance is a fucking lunatic, so is that truly an improvement?
That's funny to think that every country in the world minus the US and Iran is incapable of getting their oil out of the Persian Gulf without the help of the US.
|
I think he's talking accountability?
He starts shit, drives prices up globally, sacrificed Americans because of it, and then basically says; whatever, you can have it now, I'm bored of this.
The rest of the world is fine talking with other countries and making deals, we can do that. The US has repeatedly shown last year alone it can't and won't and throws explosive hissy fits when doing so.
You really sure like to play devil's advocate for the devil that is leader of the Republican party for not being a conservative.
|
On March 31 2026 16:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 15:43 Acrofales wrote:
If anything is going to get people using the 25th amendment to chuck him out, it's surrendering the Hormuz strait to Iran. But Vance is a fucking lunatic, so is that truly an improvement? That's funny to think that every country in the world minus the US and Iran is incapable of getting their oil out of the Persian Gulf without the help of the US. No, every country in the world was getting their oil, and gas, just fine before Trump decided to fuck everything up with a half arsed war.
|
On March 31 2026 16:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 15:43 Acrofales wrote:
If anything is going to get people using the 25th amendment to chuck him out, it's surrendering the Hormuz strait to Iran. But Vance is a fucking lunatic, so is that truly an improvement? That's funny to think that every country in the world minus the US and Iran is incapable of getting their oil out of the Persian Gulf without the help of the US.
Your help is right now unrequired, thank you very much. You screwed the situation enough. Just don't try to fix it further, you will fail and we cannot afford for more of your failures.
|
On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
I think he's talking accountability?
He starts shit, drives prices up globally, sacrificed Americans because of it, and then basically says; whatever, you can have it now, I'm bored of this.
The 25th amendment has nothing to do with "accountability." The assumption that you should hold a US president accountable for surrendering something, depends on that thing actually being the US or the US president's to surrender. The Strait of Hormuz isn't. It's like saying the US would surrender Antarctica. Does not make sense to start with. It's based on a misapprehension.
On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
The rest of the world is fine talking with other countries and making deals, we can do that. The US has repeatedly shown last year alone it can't and won't and throws explosive hissy fits when doing so.
I look forward to "the rest of the world" making a productive deal with the rational actor of Iran.
On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
You really sure like to play devil's advocate for the devil that is leader of the Republican party for not being a conservative.
Your religion doesn't move me.
The US doesn't have a conservative party. It's not the UK. It's the Republican party. Not the conservative party. Trump is even the leader of the Republican party now specifically BECAUSE he is not a conservative. Which I heard all the way through 2016. People were so sick of conservatives that even Republicans elected someone else.
On March 31 2026 16:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 16:36 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 15:43 Acrofales wrote:
If anything is going to get people using the 25th amendment to chuck him out, it's surrendering the Hormuz strait to Iran. But Vance is a fucking lunatic, so is that truly an improvement? That's funny to think that every country in the world minus the US and Iran is incapable of getting their oil out of the Persian Gulf without the help of the US. No, every country in the world was getting their oil, and gas, just fine before Trump decided to fuck everything up with a half arsed war.
Nice the oil was flowing. Were any countries getting Iranian and Iranian-funded rockets and missiles that explicitly didn't want them, by chance? The international community's perspective on Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and the IRGC and the nuclear and missile aspirations of Iran was what again - "not my problem." That was a super help to everyone in Syria and Israel and Gaza and Yemen. Beautifully managed. But at least China got their nice cheap oil. The great league of all nations came together and said "whatever we're impotent about that gun to everyone's head but hey at least oil futures are kind of stable." This is the international version of tyranny of the majority and directly responsible for decades of injustice.
|
On March 31 2026 20:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
I think he's talking accountability?
He starts shit, drives prices up globally, sacrificed Americans because of it, and then basically says; whatever, you can have it now, I'm bored of this. The 25th amendment has nothing to do with "accountability." The assumption that you should hold a US president accountable for surrendering something, depends on that thing actually being the US or the US president's to surrender. The Strait of Hormuz isn't. It's like saying the US would surrender Antarctica. Does not make sense to start with. It's based on a misapprehension. Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
The rest of the world is fine talking with other countries and making deals, we can do that. The US has repeatedly shown last year alone it can't and won't and throws explosive hissy fits when doing so. I look forward to "the rest of the world" making a productive deal with the rational actor of Iran. Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
You really sure like to play devil's advocate for the devil that is leader of the Republican party for not being a conservative. Your religion doesn't move me. The US doesn't have a conservative party. It's not the UK. It's the Republican party. Not the conservative party. Trump is even the leader of the Republican party now specifically BECAUSE he is not a conservative. Which I heard all the way through 2016. People were so sick of conservatives that even Republicans elected someone else. Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 16:49 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2026 16:36 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 15:43 Acrofales wrote:
If anything is going to get people using the 25th amendment to chuck him out, it's surrendering the Hormuz strait to Iran. But Vance is a fucking lunatic, so is that truly an improvement? That's funny to think that every country in the world minus the US and Iran is incapable of getting their oil out of the Persian Gulf without the help of the US. No, every country in the world was getting their oil, and gas, just fine before Trump decided to fuck everything up with a half arsed war. Nice the oil was flowing. Were any countries getting Iranian and Iranian-funded rockets and missiles that explicitly didn't want them, by chance? The international community's perspective on Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and the IRGC and the nuclear and missile aspirations of Iran was what again - "not my problem." That was a super help to everyone in Syria and Israel and Gaza and Yemen. Beautifully managed. But at least China got their nice cheap oil. The great league of all nations came together and said "whatever we're impotent about that gun to everyone's head but hey at least oil futures are kind of stable." This is the international version of tyranny of the majority and directly responsible for decades of injustice.
Do you seriously think that this war is well thought through, that the strategy is clear and that the whole thing is generally a good idea?
Honestly i refuse to believe it.
|
On March 31 2026 20:06 oBlade wrote:
Nice the oil was flowing. Were any countries getting Iranian and Iranian-funded rockets and missiles that explicitly didn't want them, by chance? The international community's perspective on Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and the IRGC and the nuclear and missile aspirations of Iran was what again - "not my problem." That was a super help to everyone in Syria and Israel and Gaza and Yemen. Beautifully managed. But at least China got their nice cheap oil. The great league of all nations came together and said "whatever we're impotent about that gun to everyone's head but hey at least oil futures are kind of stable." This is the international version of tyranny of the majority and directly responsible for decades of injustice.
Aaaand of course the Americans came and decided it was so great idea to ingnite the powder in formentioned gun in everyone's head. Great plan. Hopefuly you are all proud of your incredibly cunning plan to ditch global economy just to "wake up" those foreign fools, while being the biggest promoter of fossil fuel that MADE THIS SHIT REMOTELY POSSIBLE, because wind turbines are evidently creation of Satan, aren't they?
|
On March 31 2026 20:18 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 20:06 oBlade wrote:
Nice the oil was flowing. Were any countries getting Iranian and Iranian-funded rockets and missiles that explicitly didn't want them, by chance? The international community's perspective on Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and the IRGC and the nuclear and missile aspirations of Iran was what again - "not my problem." That was a super help to everyone in Syria and Israel and Gaza and Yemen. Beautifully managed. But at least China got their nice cheap oil. The great league of all nations came together and said "whatever we're impotent about that gun to everyone's head but hey at least oil futures are kind of stable." This is the international version of tyranny of the majority and directly responsible for decades of injustice. Aaaand of course the Americans came and decided it was so great idea to ingnite the powder in formentioned gun in everyone's head. Great plan. Hopefuly you are all proud of your incredibly cunning plan to ditch global economy just to "wake up" those foreign fools, while being the biggest promoter of fossil fuel that MADE THIS SHIT REMOTELY POSSIBLE, because wind turbines are evidently creation of Satan, aren't they?
The rest of the world is actually capable of solving the problem, they just don't. But/because some of them are also the problem. Why would China go into Iran when they get oil at a discount from the fact that US sanctions narrow the markets Iran can access.
You would have waited until the gun was nuclear and then smugly gone aha now Iran is finally safe? I actually think the lives of people affected by terror outweigh you paying more for gas especially when you should have already been driving an electric car like a good steward of the Earth.
"Wind turbines are evidently creation of Satan" is unhinged straw nonsense. The US isn't stopping the rest of the world from running on windmills. Physics is. "Promoter" lol. Fossil fuels are not an American Western capitalist conspiracy. They are a natural resource and way to store energy.
|
On March 31 2026 20:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
You really sure like to play devil's advocate for the devil that is leader of the Republican party for not being a conservative. Your religion doesn't move me. The US doesn't have a conservative party. It's not the UK. It's the Republican party. Not the conservative party. Trump is even the leader of the Republican party now specifically BECAUSE he is not a conservative. Which I heard all the way through 2016. People were so sick of conservatives that even Republicans elected someone else.
This is incorrect. The name of the party is indeed Republican, not Conservative, but Republicans are overwhelmingly conservative, and Trump's presidencies and campaigns have been overwhelmingly aligned with conservative policies.
Trump's appeal was being a conservative, anti-establishment outsider (as opposed to originally being part of the political machine). He absolutely ran on being a conservative and has continued to push a conservative agenda. You got your conservative Supreme Court appointees, your conservative Cabinet members, your anti-abortion, your anti-immigration, your anti-environmentalism, your anti-education, your anti-LGBTQ+, your pro-billionaire, your pro-guns, your pro-racism, your pro-sexism, and plenty of other core American conservative values all being pushed by Trump. The red states overwhelmingly voted for him in all three primaries and all three general elections.
|
On March 31 2026 20:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 20:18 hitthat wrote:On March 31 2026 20:06 oBlade wrote:
Nice the oil was flowing. Were any countries getting Iranian and Iranian-funded rockets and missiles that explicitly didn't want them, by chance? The international community's perspective on Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and the IRGC and the nuclear and missile aspirations of Iran was what again - "not my problem." That was a super help to everyone in Syria and Israel and Gaza and Yemen. Beautifully managed. But at least China got their nice cheap oil. The great league of all nations came together and said "whatever we're impotent about that gun to everyone's head but hey at least oil futures are kind of stable." This is the international version of tyranny of the majority and directly responsible for decades of injustice. Aaaand of course the Americans came and decided it was so great idea to ingnite the powder in formentioned gun in everyone's head. Great plan. Hopefuly you are all proud of your incredibly cunning plan to ditch global economy just to "wake up" those foreign fools, while being the biggest promoter of fossil fuel that MADE THIS SHIT REMOTELY POSSIBLE, because wind turbines are evidently creation of Satan, aren't they? The rest of the world is actually capable of solving the problem, they just don't. But/because some of them are also the problem. Why would China go into Iran when they get oil at a discount from the fact that US sanctions narrow the markets Iran can access. You would have waited until the gun was nuclear and then smugly gone aha now Iran is finally safe? I actually think the lives of people affected by terror outweigh you paying more for gas especially when you should have already been driving an electric car like a good steward of the Earth. "Wind turbines are evidently creation of Satan" is unhinged straw nonsense. The US isn't stopping the rest of the world from running on windmills. Physics is. "Promoter" lol. Fossil fuels are not an American Western capitalist conspiracy. They are a natural resource and way to store energy.
The US is not stopping wind farm projects and giving payouts to firms building them to stop and go away because of "physics", they are doing so because your mad King doesn't like wind farms. So much about the Republic and the Republicans.
China and every other nation who doesn't elect petulant children is investing, heavily in renewable energy, USA is going in the other direction, again, because you have a president who is as stupid as he is old, thanks to people like you.
Iran was happy to comply with the Nuclear deal until, again, your petulant King came in, tore it in half because it was one of Obama's big achievements. There was no threat of Nuclear weapons from Iran, they didn't arm or supply arms to their proxies at a rate any higher then any other Gulf states, but then Trump decided to assassinate their top official on his way out as a lame duck in a mockery of the Republic, because he could.
You are as dishonest as you are brainwashed.
|
Before the war: Strait of Hormuz open. Leader of Iran is an elderly religious fraud that can't keep the lid on reformists. Willing to give up their nukes.
After the war: Strait is closed. Leader of Iran might still be a fraud but at least appears to be more fanatical, wants revenge for the US killing his dad. Reformists discredited. Will never give up their nukes, ever.
Art of the deal. oBlade can sleep well at night knowing a dozen Americans died for this improved status quo.
|
On March 31 2026 21:07 LightSpectra wrote:
Before the war: Strait of Hormuz open. Leader of Iran is an elderly religious fraud that can't keep the lid on reformists. Willing to give up their nukes.
After the war: Strait is closed. Leader of Iran might still be a fraud but at least appears to be more fanatical, wants revenge for the US killing his dad. Reformists discredited. Will never give up their nukes, ever.
Art of the deal. oBlade can sleep well at night knowing a dozen Americans died for this improved status quo.
Think about all the good that could come from the money someone made with insider trading though.
And higher oil prices.
I sure am enjoying the show (recovering from war crimes).
Well, not really enjoying. More like watching a tyrannical oligarchy unravel for what it is.
Guess they never ask if fairytales are true if they suit them.
|
On March 31 2026 21:01 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 20:35 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 20:18 hitthat wrote:On March 31 2026 20:06 oBlade wrote:
Nice the oil was flowing. Were any countries getting Iranian and Iranian-funded rockets and missiles that explicitly didn't want them, by chance? The international community's perspective on Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and the IRGC and the nuclear and missile aspirations of Iran was what again - "not my problem." That was a super help to everyone in Syria and Israel and Gaza and Yemen. Beautifully managed. But at least China got their nice cheap oil. The great league of all nations came together and said "whatever we're impotent about that gun to everyone's head but hey at least oil futures are kind of stable." This is the international version of tyranny of the majority and directly responsible for decades of injustice. Aaaand of course the Americans came and decided it was so great idea to ingnite the powder in formentioned gun in everyone's head. Great plan. Hopefuly you are all proud of your incredibly cunning plan to ditch global economy just to "wake up" those foreign fools, while being the biggest promoter of fossil fuel that MADE THIS SHIT REMOTELY POSSIBLE, because wind turbines are evidently creation of Satan, aren't they? The rest of the world is actually capable of solving the problem, they just don't. But/because some of them are also the problem. Why would China go into Iran when they get oil at a discount from the fact that US sanctions narrow the markets Iran can access. You would have waited until the gun was nuclear and then smugly gone aha now Iran is finally safe? I actually think the lives of people affected by terror outweigh you paying more for gas especially when you should have already been driving an electric car like a good steward of the Earth. "Wind turbines are evidently creation of Satan" is unhinged straw nonsense. The US isn't stopping the rest of the world from running on windmills. Physics is. "Promoter" lol. Fossil fuels are not an American Western capitalist conspiracy. They are a natural resource and way to store energy. The US is not stopping wind farm projects and giving payouts to firms building them to stop and go away because of "physics", they are doing so because your mad King doesn't like wind farms. So much about the Republic and the Republicans. China and every other nation who doesn't elect petulant children is investing, heavily in renewable energy, USA is going in the other direction, again, because you have a president who is as stupid as he is old, thanks to people like you. Iran was happy to comply with the Nuclear deal until, again, your petulant King came in, tore it in half because it was one of Obama's big achievements. There was no threat of Nuclear weapons from Iran, they didn't arm or supply arms to their proxies at a rate any higher then any other Gulf states, but then Trump decided to assassinate their top official on his way out as a lame duck in a mockery of the Republic, because he could. You are as dishonest as you are brainwashed.
That was in 2018. Since months ago Iran's negotiating position was "we are weeks away from 11 bombs and there is nothing you can do to get us to stop" and they launched a missile 4000km after saying their missiles were capped at 2000km, I find Iran's credibility on their own threat to be higher than yours.
Kuwait and Bahrain do not fund terror and had nothing to do with October 7th. Not on board with the "boys will be boys" assessment of apocalyptic Islamist regimes.
Trump has most of 3 years left. Lame duck period is after November 2028 if he doesn't win a third term.
If wind farms are good they shouldn't hinge on the US funding them for the world. Otherwise name a specific fact or you're just complaining.
On March 31 2026 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 20:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
You really sure like to play devil's advocate for the devil that is leader of the Republican party for not being a conservative. Your religion doesn't move me. The US doesn't have a conservative party. It's not the UK. It's the Republican party. Not the conservative party. Trump is even the leader of the Republican party now specifically BECAUSE he is not a conservative. Which I heard all the way through 2016. People were so sick of conservatives that even Republicans elected someone else. This is incorrect. The name of the party is indeed Republican, not Conservative, but Republicans are overwhelmingly conservative, and Trump's presidencies and campaigns have been overwhelmingly aligned with conservative policies. Trump's appeal was being a conservative, anti-establishment outsider (as opposed to originally being part of the political machine). He absolutely ran on being a conservative and has continued to push a conservative agenda. You got your conservative Supreme Court appointees, your conservative Cabinet members, your anti-abortion, your anti-immigration, your anti-environmentalism, your anti-education, your anti-LGBTQ+, your pro-billionaire, your pro-guns, your pro-racism, your pro-sexism, and plenty of other core American conservative values all being pushed by Trump. The red states overwhelmingly voted for him in all three primaries and all three general elections.
The red in red states stands again for the Republican party, not for conservatism. You're running in a circle.
Putting "pro-racism" and "pro-sexism and "anti-education" and probably others that I'm not strictly focusing on in detail, just preempting so you don't return with an absurd "aha so you admit this is a conservative value since you didn't specifically mention it wasn't" in one of your relitigate-the-entire-political-world lists is just inflammatory bullshit.
In 1984 49 "red" states voted for Reagan and he gave amnesty to 2 million illegal immigrants. That makes amnesty conservative woohoo. Football and basketball are the favorite sports of "red states." Overwhelmingly. Very conservative.
|
On March 31 2026 21:17 oBlade wrote:
If wind farms are good they shouldn't hinge on the US funding them for the world. Otherwise name a specific fact or you're just complaining.
You appear to be deeply confused about, well, basically everything.
"On Monday, the Trump administration announced its newest approach to its goal of blocking the development of offshore wind: pay companies to walk away from lease sites they had paid for under the Biden administration. The Department of the Interior, which arranges leases of coastal sites for the development of wind farms, would end up returning about $1 billion to France’s TotalEnergies, which has promised both to invest that money in US-based fossil fuel projects and to not do any further offshore wind development in the US. [...] The deal would see TotalEnergies invest roughly $1 billion in oil and natural gas projects in the US. Once those commitments are made, the US would pay the company that amount in return for its abandonment of two areas it had leased for offshore wind." https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/03/trumps-latest-anti-wind-effort-pay-companies-to-abandon-offshore-leases/
It wasn't the US buying wind farms for other countries, a French company paid the US for the rights to build a wind farm to boost the US grid. Mr. Art of the Deal decided a better idea would be using your tax dollars to cancel that deal, also driving your energy bill up at the same time because gas is currently more expensive than wind and it'll take longer to get running. Hope you feel like you got your money's worth.
|
There has been a metric tonne of immigration into the USA during republican presidencies. The American medical system has been recruiting Canadian educated nurses, microbiologists, radiology techs, blood bank techs, xray techs, orthopeadic surgeons with massive pay bumps and better working conditions since the 1960s. My grandma refused a 100% pay raise running a much better lab in New York in 1970 because she was afraid her young son would end up in Vietnam.
Immigration is a pillar of America and independent from the 2 party system.
On March 31 2026 21:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 21:17 oBlade wrote:
If wind farms are good they shouldn't hinge on the US funding them for the world. Otherwise name a specific fact or you're just complaining. You appear to be deeply confused about, well, basically everything. "On Monday, the Trump administration announced its newest approach to its goal of blocking the development of offshore wind: pay companies to walk away from lease sites they had paid for under the Biden administration. The Department of the Interior, which arranges leases of coastal sites for the development of wind farms, would end up returning about $1 billion to France’s TotalEnergies, which has promised both to invest that money in US-based fossil fuel projects and to not do any further offshore wind development in the US. [...] The deal would see TotalEnergies invest roughly $1 billion in oil and natural gas projects in the US. Once those commitments are made, the US would pay the company that amount in return for its abandonment of two areas it had leased for offshore wind." https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/03/trumps-latest-anti-wind-effort-pay-companies-to-abandon-offshore-leases/It wasn't the US buying wind farms for other countries, a French company paid the US for the rights to build a wind farm to boost the US grid. Mr. Art of the Deal decided a better idea would be using your tax dollars to cancel that deal, also driving your energy bill up at the same time because gas is currently more expensive than wind and it'll take longer to get running. Hope you feel like you got your money's worth.
if wind is a great way to generate electricity it will survive Trump. Nicola Tesla's AC Power was attacked hard. The "AC Will KIll You" fear campaign failed. The "AC Power Will Kill You" fear campaign failed. AC survived and won. If windmills are so great they'll do just fine. If they turn out to be more expensive than coal... then they lose.
|
On March 31 2026 21:17 oBlade wrote:
In 1984 49 "red" states voted for Reagan and he gave amnesty to 2 million illegal immigrants. That makes amnesty conservative woohoo. Football and basketball are the favorite sports of "red states." Overwhelmingly. Very conservative.
If Trump tomorrow gave amnesty to every illegal immigrant in the US, no one would be surprised if you would cheerlead the decision after about 1-2 days of being confused.
|
On March 31 2026 21:43 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 21:17 oBlade wrote:
In 1984 49 "red" states voted for Reagan and he gave amnesty to 2 million illegal immigrants. That makes amnesty conservative woohoo. Football and basketball are the favorite sports of "red states." Overwhelmingly. Very conservative. If Trump tomorrow gave amnesty to every illegal immigrant in the US, no one would be surprised if you would cheerlead the decision after about 1-2 days of being confused.
Obama wouldn't be happy to see that. Because, you see, "we are also a nation of laws". He pushed for undocumented workers to pay a fine and head to the back of the line of people waiting to work legally in the USA.
@4:06 "we are also a nation of laws. undocumented workers broke our immigration laws and I believe they must be held to account."
It is amazing how smoothly you can deport millions of undocumented workers when you have the skills of diplomacy Obama possesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
