EPTOn April 01 2026 03:25 Doublemint wrote:
Trump is the Lie-Atollah Republicans crave and ultimately deserve.
Trump is the Lie-Atollah Republicans crave and ultimately deserve.
Solid work
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5619
| 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 | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27459 Posts
Solid work | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
If the president is assassinated and his vice-president is sworn in as president, is that regime change? It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases So are you willing to concede that NATO is not as strong under Trump? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3271 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
On April 01 2026 04:26 LightSpectra wrote: Is Hegseth the worst cabinet member in United States history, both in terms of competence and ethics? I mean Jefferson raped his slaves so... | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3271 Posts
Is Hegseth the worst cabinet member aside from the slave-owners? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
I strongly recommend you read this book. Your local public library ought to have it. You'd be surprised how little any of this is new. There's a bit in it where he's interviewing a Dominican (if I recall correctly) and they ask him why he's writing this book. The author explains that he's trying to help Americans learn about their history in the region. The man goes "They don't know? How can they not know?" Americans simply don't learn about their sins, they are too many for any education to reasonably cover. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6540 Posts
On April 01 2026 03:54 Falling wrote: If the king is killed and the crown prince becomes king, is that regime change? If the president is assassinated and his vice-president is sworn in as president, is that regime change? That is known as succession. You know Iran doesn't have that? Hereditary or otherwise. Imagine Iran blew up everyone in the government except Sean Duffy, Nancy Pelosi, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, and Kash Patel, and they elected Eric Trump special president. On April 01 2026 03:54 Falling wrote: So are you willing to concede that NATO is not as strong under Trump? Am I willing to "concede?" Why do you talk like this? This is immediately a "concession" because why, again? The only purpose of your post is to "get" me because you're still on first base thinking I think Trump and the whole world is perfect? Like you almost asked a well-formed question. Is NATO as strong under Trump. We almost have enough to answer this. Except we don't know what we're comparing it to. Is NATO as strong under Trump... as what? As when? As under Reagan when the navy was 600 ships? Maybe not. Soviets didn't succeed in any expansionism in the 80s. On the other hand they didn't Allow me to answer that question with a question. Is Mike Tyson stronger after a fight or before a fight? NATO is weaker both after Ukraine and after Iran, since the US is weaker after Iran. And even though Ukraine isn't NATO's war, they get all the materiel. Fighting makes you weaker. This is basic. Although there is a chance of overcompensating also which has you end up being stronger. But also lack of experience makes you weaker. In that sense, fighting makes you stronger also. So was NATO stronger under Trump 1 with no wars, than under Obama when NATO was in Afghanistan and overlapping coalition nations were in Iraq? I'm not doing the calculation. Is NATO stronger under Trump 2 after years of war in Ukraine than under Biden? Again I'm not doing the calculation. Does the state of NATO's strength depend even one iota on the gossipy ick feelings spread and sympathized with by discontented leftist netizens of the various member nations? Never. Does it depend on Spanish airfield staging for Iran? Nope. Spain has a weak history in NATO and in the world wars that created the alignment which required NATO. I don't think Spain would have helped Biden after he launched a surprise attack in Iran either. I mean if that happened just imagine being Biden when he learned that he had launched a surprise attack in Iran. That would be a candid camera moment. I don't find NATO's relative strength particularly sensitive or measurable. You seem to be implying it's a failure of Trump's that he's made NATO weak. Conversely, you must want NATO to be strong. I also prefer a stronger NATO to a weaker NATO, so it can go around the world prosecuting interventions even more effectively and much more often. Do you agree? So hope that was enough mileage from your good faith question. NATO is weak in a very specific way. Spain isn't sharing airfields for US action in Iran. We don't need to editorialize. That's it. That's the weakness. Now, if Russia could just waltz into the Baltics and also take over Poland with no Article 5 response from the members of NATO, that would also be NATO being weak. But that is different than Spanish airfields and the two don't affect each other. The first definitely doesn't make the second. Or is NATO's subjective spiritual resolve and mental fortitude stronger or weaker now? I wouldn't presume to soul read NATO. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
But I think what Falling is trying to lead you to is the idea that there's a connection between the way the US has been treating her allies and the ways that the allies are treating the US. Like maybe don't insult the men and women who fought and died in defence of America and then demand more. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On April 01 2026 04:53 oBlade wrote: That is known as succession. You know Iran doesn't have that? Hereditary or otherwise. Imagine Iran blew up everyone in the government except Sean Duffy, Nancy Pelosi, Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, and Kash Patel, and they elected Eric Trump special president. Well, you aren't going to get hereditary and a clean line of succession when you are dealing with things like prophet-like leaders. But if the son of the prophet takes over, is it really regime change? For instance, the same problem arose when trying to figure out who to replace Mohammad. But would you really call Abu Bakr's ascension to caliph as 'regime' change? Whereas when you have actual factualism and a new faction takes over when Ali is assassinated and the Umayyad's take over- that sounds closer to regime change to me. And certainly the change from the Umayyads to the Abassids. re: NATO. Why word it that way? Because the only answer you would give in our prior conversation is America's military is stronger (due to Trump getting elected? I'm not sure if you specified why that was so) and therefore NATO is stronger but you refused to engage in any other factors that might make an alliance stronger or weaker. (Though somebody, maybe it was you said geo-politics isn't mean-girls, so effectively whatever Trump was doing, the alliance would get over it and fall in line.) Yes, I think NATO should be strong. There was a time where I might have bought the idea that it was a relic of the Cold War but it seems there is still a role, and I don't think it should be taken for granted like Trump, his administration, and you seem to. Because I would argue the strength of an alliance is not just stockpiled war material and trained soldiers but also the willingness and ability to coordinate common strategic goals. You were complaining that it shouldn't be that hard to get use of air-bases (a real world impact beyond 'spiritual resolve' or 'fortitude' or whatever), so I thought you might be reckoning there was something amiss with the co-ordination part of the alliance even if you still can't acknowledge whether or not threatening an alliance member is typical for a strong alliance getting stronger. On April 01 2026 05:03 KwarK wrote: The idea that Ukraine is getting all the NATO materiel is frankly laughable but even if it was, that's literally the idea. NATO is meant to deter Russia, if you give Ukraine an anti tank missile and they blow up a Russian tank then NATO's position versus the enemy it is intended to deter is improved. That's literally why NATO got the missile in the first place. But I think what Falling is trying to lead you to is the idea that there's a connection between the way the US has been treating her allies and the ways that the allies are treating the US. Like maybe don't insult the men and women who fought and died in defence of America and then demand more. Exactly. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5226 Posts
On April 01 2026 04:26 LightSpectra wrote: Is Hegseth the worst cabinet member in United States history, both in terms of competence and ethics? He's just one of the worst human beings ever, so entertaning a subset of that is just a rhetorical question. Imagine him as president, holy shit. GoT Geoffrey arc would seem kindergarten safe in comparison. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27459 Posts
He was something of a competent bloke though, Hegseth is going 0 for 2 I suppose we’re seeing the sliver of silver linings lately, at a stretch anyway. I think worst case scenario was Trump packing various institutions with various Trump loyalists, and the competent powers behind the throne so to speak somewhat directing proceedings through institutions now stacked with party men and women who’d rubber stamp everything the Trump whisperers wanted. Instead it seems that after a seemingly strong start with that particular plan, they’ve gone a bit far in leaning into pliant idiots and it’s gone full shitshow | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17895 Posts
Trump: "Its both" Trump says we are "ahead of schedule". Problem is, we are 32 days into an "excursion" he said would last 4 or 5 weeks. Netanyahu says we are "more than halfway through the war". So which is it? Is it both? LOL | ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
| ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1354 Posts
On April 01 2026 08:55 KwarK wrote: Total Iranian victory looks extremely likely at this point. Trump is now communicating a two week timeline to evacuating US forces and surrendering the Gulf to the superior Iranian army. I would like to point out the US is very much looking like it's taking the "walk away" option. I'm not sure this is characterised as 'total Iranian victory', they did after all request reparations (understantably, in the wake of a pretty much unprovoked attack during negotiation). And I don't see the US doing that. I'm not sure if the below quote was as a response to me, or just in general. But I did say this was going to be the likely eventual outcome, the US either loudly, or quietly just pisses off. Though, this could also just be what Trump thinks passes for guile, troops are being sent to the ME, surely for a reason. Also possible, that instead of actually evacuating, they try and seize Kharg Island over the long weekend for the markets. I don't think there's anything like enough troops there for a ground invasion of Iran at large. On March 24 2026 12:14 KwarK wrote: There is no “walk away” option for the US. Abandoning the Persian Gulf entirely would be an absolute surrender. There are a dozen reasons for Iran to keep the strait closed for a long time. Iran has, so far this war, taken orders of magnitude more damage than the US. The US has lost a handful of planes and crew and a lot of interceptors. Iran has lost its navy, air force, hardened bunkers, warehouses, stockpiles, bases etc., in addition to the new Supreme Leader having had his father, wife, and teenage son killed. As I keep repeating, the US and Israel peak immediately, they do the most damage on day 1 where they destroy all the highest value targets. On day 2 they destroy the second highest value targets because they can't destroy the highest value targets a second time. On day 3 the third. The longer the war goes the less damage bombing can do. They already killed his wife, they can't do it again. Iran's retaliation grows steadily over time but doesn't even start to kick in until day 150 or so. There is significant latency between crude oil leaving the Gulf and the diesel in a gas station. Consumers haven't actually seen any impact in supply yet. The prices increases are speculative, suppliers don't want to sell today if they think that the price will be higher tomorrow and they won't have oil tomorrow to sell. And even once the supply does drop the strategic reserves have enough to cover months of the missing output from the Gulf. As the strategic reserves run low the prices will increase. As prices increase additional more expensive sources of oil will be brought online which will be priced accordingly. The longer it goes the higher the price gets. That is Iran's retaliation. It hasn't started yet and it won't have any deterrence impact if they sign an early ceasefire. Even if Israel and the US stop bombing entirely they still need to interdict it, or charge such high transit fees that prices are higher. They need people to remember that 2026 was the year where there was a global recession caused by high oil prices so that the next time someone wants to bomb Iran they think twice. If Iran opens the strait early then they have no deterrent. They'd be saying "feel free to bomb the shit out of us for a week, we'll announce a disruption but as long as you stocked up the reserve ahead of time you can weather it". They'll get bombed by Israel once a year. The idea that the US and Israel can beat the shit out of Iran, kill the leader's wife, kill his son, and then call a timeout before he hits back is absurd to me. It would undermine every single part of their publicly stated strategy of using the strait as a last resort deterrent bargaining chip. They constructed this strategy over decades, they know this. It would be national suicide. The idea that Iran, one of the largest oil exporters in the world, has nothing to gain from spiking oil prices is nuts. The regime and country have been absolutely savaged. I've been hating on American strategy a lot here because the American strategy is nonsensical but that doesn't mean that the USAF can't demolish buildings. They were in terrible shape before and much worse shape now than they were then. If the regime is to survive they need hard foreign currency. They need their oil on the market and as few of their competitors as possible as a matter of national survival. The rebuilding project will not be cheap and there are a lot of regime loyalists who will need to be paid. Additionally it simply wouldn't make sense not to continue the position that they control the strait. Free navigation of the seas is a postwar American invention enforced by the US Navy. Lots of countries would like to declare that actually they own this bit of water or that bit of water and that everyone has to pay them transit fees or whatever but they haven't been able to because the US Navy will disprove that notion. These waterways aren't just open by default, they're national territory by default, open is an artificial state of affairs that has been constructed and maintained by the US Navy. If the US declares that they're no longer interested in keeping the strait open then it won't suddenly revert to free neutrality under a ceasefire. It'll be owned by the strongest. This is existential for Iran. Either they establish a convincing deterrent by confronting the US Navy over the strait and winning (which includes the US Navy forfeiting) or they die. There's no deal to be made here where the strait is reopened any time soon, it'll stay closed until such a time as a country with sufficient force projection to open it opens it. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/31/trump-executive-order-limiting-mail-in-voting-00853296 I know the Trump fans get annoyed on going back term one Trump because can't we all move on and let the past be the past. But there is a direct line between the false fraud claims Trump claims made then and the same ones he is making now in order to justify voter suppression now. As for any judge might raise an eyebrow over an executive order could over-ride the State Legislature on the Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections, well of course: “I don’t know how it can be challenged. ... You may find a rogue judge. You get a lot of rogue judges, very bad, bad people, very bad judges. But that’s the only way that can be changed, and hopefully we’ll win an appeal.” That's the only possibility. The only reason the Donald can ever comprehend whether it's a reporter question he doesn't like or a court ruling which doesn't go his away. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46484 Posts
On April 01 2026 10:17 Falling wrote: Welp. By Hook or by Crook, Trump will attempt to suppress the votes by limiting mail in ballots, despite no evidence of voter fraud. This time by executive order. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/31/trump-executive-order-limiting-mail-in-voting-00853296 I know the Trump fans get annoyed on going back term one Trump because can't we all move on and let the past be the past. But there is a direct line between the false fraud claims Trump claims made then and the same ones he is making now in order to justify voter suppression now. As for any judge might raise an eyebrow over an executive order could over-ride the State Legislature on the Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections, well of course: That's the only possibility. The only reason the Donald can ever comprehend whether it's a reporter question he doesn't like or a court ruling which doesn't go his away. And yet he just voted via mail-in ballot, and mere hours ago we had one or two posters pretend that Trump wasn't trying to keep America conservative. Tsk tsk. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
On April 01 2026 09:25 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: I would like to point out the US is very much looking like it's taking the "walk away" option. I'm not sure this is characterised as 'total Iranian victory', they did after all request reparations (understantably, in the wake of a pretty much unprovoked attack during negotiation). And I don't see the US doing that. I'm not sure if the below quote was as a response to me, or just in general. But I did say this was going to be the likely eventual outcome, the US either loudly, or quietly just pisses off. Though, this could also just be what Trump thinks passes for guile, troops are being sent to the ME, surely for a reason. Also possible, that instead of actually evacuating, they try and seize Kharg Island over the long weekend for the markets. I don't think there's anything like enough troops there for a ground invasion of Iran at large. My point in that longer quote was that walking away means forfeiting a central pillar of US hegemony for 80 years. It isn’t a ceasefire or a timeout or going home, it is a defeat of the US Navy, it is the US Navy not being able to fulfill its core mission. US surrender. Reparations or not the defeat is staggering. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1354 Posts
On April 01 2026 10:59 KwarK wrote: My point in that longer quote was that walking away means forfeiting a central pillar of US hegemony for 80 years. It isn’t a ceasefire or a timeout or going home, it is a defeat of the US Navy, it is the US Navy not being able to fulfill its core mission. US surrender. Reparations or not the defeat is staggering. Oh I agree, from the POV of the US, this is humiliating setback to their interests. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, and especially Iran, this isn't really defeat of the US. In the sense that there is no resolution, there is no formal agreement, no reparations, no security guarantee, no understanding that there won't just be another decapitation strike in a few weeks/months. It's just the US fucking off in the middle of a fight out of Iran's practical reach. Iran and Israel will probably have at each other for a bit more, but rather than coming to victory, or defeat, or ceasefire or any kind of resolution, the US seems set to... just stop directly participating. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18450 Posts
On April 01 2026 15:26 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Oh I agree, from the POV of the US, this is humiliating setback to their interests. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, and especially Iran, this isn't really defeat of the US. In the sense that there is no resolution, there is no formal agreement, no reparations, no security guarantee, no understanding that there won't just be another decapitation strike in a few weeks/months. It's just the US fucking off in the middle of a fight out of Iran's practical reach. Iran and Israel will probably have at each other for a bit more, but rather than coming to victory, or defeat, or ceasefire or any kind of resolution, the US seems set to... just stop directly participating. The US stopping its intervention is exactly what Iranian victory looks like. Imagine if Russia stopped its intervention is in Ukraine and went home. That would absolutely be called a victory for Ukraine even if the Russian army first fortified the Crim and said they weren't giving that back, or if Russia didn't give any guarantees of future safety or reparations. Iran got attacked. Withstanding the attack is a victory. They had an Islamic theocracy before the war and still have an Islamic theocracy now. They don't have the power to force the US or Israel to pay any reparations. But they do have the power to charge tolls from any ship trying to pass the Strait of Hormuz. That is something they couldn't do before. And sure, Trump will call it a total victory. It's the advantage and disadvantage of going in with no plan and daily changing goals, you can always just say "we did it, adios", but if the actual outcome is that you leave yourself weaker, and your opponent stronger (long-term) then nobody anywhere (except oBlade and other "centrists") is going to believe you. On March 31 2026 16:36 oBlade wrote: 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. You're normally smarter than that. The point isn't whether or not other countries can get their oil. The point is that this war ending with Iran maintaining its antagonistic theocracy and now also controlling the Strait of Hormuz is an unequivocally terrible result for the US. The rest of the world was already losing faith in the US as the protector of free trade, but the military was still their big stick they could use to bully rogue nations. Now it seems they are just as useless at that as Russia. So if the US doesn't guarantee free trade and the US military doesn't protect it, why should anybody listen to the US at all? And being the president who threw all that away without even a coherent thought to begin with, against the advice of most of his advisors, seems like a president unfit for duty. But covfefe to you sir! | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
On April 01 2026 02:22 oBlade wrote: Their "capabilities" are not "completely" degraded. But there's a limit to the point there. In April 1945 Germany did not have a chance of like oh maybe turning it around. You can post this until you are blue in the face, no matter how much you hate Trump, Iran's not going to defeat him for you. To be honest, if the US pulls out without genuine regime change happening, then it's functionally a defeat. EDIT: Having read some subsequent posts, it's clear that you think one person dying is the same as the regime dying. This is not the case. If you ask the question "Is the IRGC still part of the regime?", and the answer is a resounding "Yes!", then regime change hasn't really happened. | ||
| ||
