|
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 |
Northern Ireland26572 Posts
On April 12 2026 12:25 KwarK wrote:
After half a day of talks Vance has given up and is flying back to the US. Weird to declare a ceasefire for negotiations and then immediately give up on them, makes you wonder if the whole ceasefire thing was just a panic way of adding two weeks to the deadline after the terrorism threats failed.
For a war that was won in what, a day? And the major sticking point apparently being nukes, but you’d helped obliterate that on the last excursion
What an absolute clown fiesta
On April 12 2026 13:58 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2026 12:25 KwarK wrote:
After half a day of talks Vance has given up and is flying back to the US. Weird to declare a ceasefire for negotiations and then immediately give up on them, makes you wonder if the whole ceasefire thing was just a panic way of adding two weeks to the deadline after the terrorism threats failed. Not surprised, this has been a trend. Have you noticed that whenever Trump meets in person with someone he's antagonized online (Zelensky, von der Leyden, Mamdani, etc) he immediately softens up his position, but whenever he sends his ass-kissing acolytes they get 0 diplomacy done cause they're entirely focused on proving to him how tough they are?
Aye, we’re hitting new peaks of how diplomacy is conducted with this lot
|
We will sadly probably not get a future 'tell all' book from top non-us diplomats about how utterly insane these closed door meetings have been and how frustrating it is trying to be professional when the opposition are utter clown and children, yet powerful enough that you can just tell them to fuck off.
Would be interesting to read about.
|
United States45487 Posts
On April 12 2026 14:40 KT_Elwood wrote:Trump was handed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_dealWith everything Trump gets totally for free and like a bliss from god, he shits his pants and breaks it.. and then he blames somebody else. His daddy's real estate empire, the casinos he build and swindled the contractors out of money, the taxes he kept through fraud... Netanyahu needs ongoing war, so he can miss his court dates... and so JD blows negotiations after hundreds of diplomats worked hard to get them set up and literally handed them a way out of this war...whcih they don't even want to fight.. on a silver platter with a big ribbon on top. "YEAH BUT THE NUKES!!" There is no negotiations with this administration. You can't trust a single word from DJT or his goons ever. They are not sincere, they want liquified reality and say so openly "Listen everything bad is Biden, and everything good is me, okay? can you say that?"
Trump was also handed this, which he also disregarded:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/obama-team-left-pandemic-playbook-for-trump-administration-officials-confirm
As for Trump's attempt to distract the country from his Epstein scandal by creating a war, it's very telling that now Melania is trying to distract the country from her husband's war scandal by bringing up Epstein again. Full circle.
|
I can't believe there are still americans who are happy with the clown fiesta.
|
Why is everyone making fun of Kristi Noem's husband? Shouldn't he be welcomed into the inclusive mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community? why is everyone "kink shaming" him? why is he going into rehab guys?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/kristi-noem-husband-entered-christian-154120474.html
One of my customers is a media company that owns a chain of adult stores. A few of the stores are 24/7 with private viewing booths. If he watched 30+ hours of security footage of the action during the weekend midnight shifts that would scare him straight. He could even pop by one of the stores and check it out. It makes for great conversion therapy.
EDIT: i must confess i do not know the meanings of all 16 letters and symbols in the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ acronym, however, Mr. Noem must fit into one of them.
On April 12 2026 19:56 KT_Elwood wrote:
I can't believe there are still americans who are happy with the clown fiesta.
You probably do not understand Americans very well.
meh, the approval rating of Trump is about equal to Justin Trudeau's approval rating and he did a worse job with 100% backing of the media.
Trump's approval rating is right where it should be ... i can 100% believe it.
|
Northern Ireland26572 Posts
On April 12 2026 20:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Why is everyone making fun of Kristi Noem's husband? Shouldn't he be welcomed into the inclusive mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community? why is everyone "kink shaming" him? why is he going into rehab guys? https://ca.news.yahoo.com/kristi-noem-husband-entered-christian-154120474.htmlOne of my customers is a media company that owns a chain of adult stores. A few of the stores are 24/7 with private viewing booths. If he watched 30+ hours of security footage of the action during the weekend midnight shifts that would scare him straight. He could even pop by one of the stores and check it out. It makes for great conversion therapy. Show nested quote +On April 12 2026 19:56 KT_Elwood wrote:
I can't believe there are still americans who are happy with the clown fiesta. You probably do not understand Americans very well. meh, the approval rating of Trump is about equal to Justin Trudeau's approval rating and he did a worse job with 100% backing of the media. Trump's approval rating is right where it should be ... i can 100% believe it.
I mean I know nout about the lad other than he’s Kristi Noem’s husband. If he’s one of those ‘family values’ types who doesn’t practice what they preach, it’s the hypocrisy that he’s being made fun of. A tale almost as old as time itself.
If not that rather classic archetype, then maybe it is harsh and hypocritical from others, although as I said not a bloke nor a story I’ve followed.
In what sense do you consider Trump to be doing a better job than Trudeau? Even if you think Trudeau did a shit job there are levels here no?
|
On April 12 2026 19:56 KT_Elwood wrote:
I can't believe there are still americans who are happy with the clown fiesta.
He made being openly bigoted socially acceptable, and countless people will kill and die for that privilege. It's the only thing many of them have to cling to in their miserable lives after their children went no-contact.
|
On April 11 2026 02:18 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2026 01:21 WombaT wrote:On April 11 2026 00:04 dyhb wrote:On April 10 2026 21:28 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 23:18 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 14:12 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote:And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them! (I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.) Well, Iran has a recent history of just not agreeing to a ceasefire, and the US has a (less) recent history of attacking Iran during negotiation or breaking a ceasefire. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'. You seem to show a recency-bias on your thinking patterns without justifying yourself. I'd simply call it ignoring history. Year after year of absolutely lying to the IAEA on their nuclear development, sanitizing locations, stopping inspectors. Denying assistance to the Houthis, in the past also to Hezbollah, among other routine attempts to deny assistance to their proxies. That and the fact that if Iran didn't want a ceasefire and just wanted to keep the strait closed, then they had no incentive to agree to one in the first place given their stated, and well justified, distrust of US 'negotiation'.
That and there is the distinct possibility that there is only an agreement in principle to a ceasefire, and noone has actually agreed to actual terms. So both sides just operate under what think they can and can't do, and will accuse the opposition of violating what they think shouldn't be done.
We could just be watching in real time, both sides discover that they don't actually have terms both sides can agree to for a ceasefire. I say both sides, because I have a hard time believing Israel even want a ceasefire, so it's really only the US and Iran negotiating. They certainly want one on their terms, since agreeing to a ceasefire that only binds their opponents and still allows them threats or tolls on passing ships is a win-win. I don't claim to know precisely what was agreed to in principle. I know enough that stating Iran's *claims about what happened* as absolute fact (that the US violated the ceasefire) is ignorance or indifference to truth. It could be that the framework was simply that the US and Iran stop their attacks/threatened attacks on the country and civilian vessels while negotiations continue to how to make it last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of ' believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'Oh no, I'm showing recency bias, when talking about conduct during a war that just got hot a little over a month ago. I mean, what that source is claiming, is not very far fetched. Israel has verifiably continued its attacks in Lebanon. It's difficult to imagine a world where the US said 'go ahead on your nuclear program', we don't know about the drone, but again... not exactly farfetched that a drone flew over Iranian airspace. The source did not even claim that the US agreed to these conditions, in fact the phrasing is their '10-point ceasefire proposal'. While I'm not sure calling this 'Trump violating the ceasefire' is very accurate, do you have any reason to doubt 'Iran's *claims about what happened'? Given one of his points is verifiably true, one would be difficult to imagine being untrue, and the third being not really an extraordinary claim. I'd say it's more of a case that this ceasefire had very few terms and conditions to begin with, let alone any they actually agree on and we are just seeing two sides confirm there is little common ground for a ceasefire to actually take effect. You just gotta hand it to the bloodthirsty state sponsors of terrorism that kill 30,000 of their own people: they just run the most credible wars. The wars where they're attacking non-parties with missiles, you know. Very credibleSorry, it reeks of bias. Particularly, calling their habit of lying in support of their regime as not germane to their credibility, and a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth. Two final things, since you've strayed from the post I wrote in ways that muddy up the issue. First, I gather you now agree with me that "Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire" is inaccurate? Remember, it's a positive statement of fact. That you both know what the terms were, and know that Trump violated them, simply because Iran told you. If you never disagreed with my post, just tell me. Second, why on earth does one side's penchant for lying mean you have to downrate the other's penchant for lying? I expect both to lie in their self-interest. That makes the search for the truth of it more difficult. My posts have never been to agree with DPB's assertion that Trump has violated the ceasefire, I said as much when I that this conclusion does not actually follow from the source he is quoting. I didn't even think there were enough terms discussed (much less agreed to) for a ceasefire beyond both sides vaguely agreeing there exist a list of demands for each side where they would agree to stop fighting if such demands are met. Subsequent statements by Sharif frankly seem to suggest they did seem to indicate agreement to some terms. My assertion was always just that Iran's statements about this war have been remarkably straight-foward and accurate. They have stated right from the beginning that they were prepared to weather a considerable amount of decapitation of their leadership structure, they warned they were going to close the Hormuz strait. They warned they were going to strike regional US allies. I say remarkably straight forward, because I don't expect this level of directness of any country engaged in, or about to engage in a war. They have communicated (threatened really) a clear strategic approach, then executed it. In contrast, the US communications during the war seem to suggest even THEY don't know what their strategic approach is. It's difficult to be credible when you are making 180 degree turns on goals and grand strategy every few days. Trump has also repeatedly claimed that Iran have either: initiated negotiations, already conducted good talks etc, while Iran have repeatedly denied this. Look, I don't care who the two parties are, if one side is claiming there are productive talks between the two sides, while the other side shows complete disinterest, I'm believing the complete disinterest. So when it comes to statements on where they think they stand in this war in terms of what they are going to do next, their receptiveness to negotiation, or in this case, whether they consider themselves still in and bound by a ceasefire. Iran has been far more credible. To your point on past Iranian dishonesty: Firstly, to use your own words "a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth." I don't find either side to be of a particularly (or even generally) honest nature. I don't need them to be. Despite whatever dishonesty, Iranian statements about about the goings on of this war have a remarkable (again, in the literal sense, not that they are all true, just that they overall tell a pretty accurate story) conformity to reality in a way US statements do not. I'm interested in knowing, to the best available information what's going on and where each side stands, not an emotional investment in the 'our honest good guys' being more virtuous than the 'their dishonest bad guys'. There are frankly here at least three sets of 'dishonest bad guys' and I hope they all lose. In the meantime I'm going to give more credence to statements from one that has consistently stood up better to reality over the course of this war. Then you agree with me on the only points I sought to make to DarkPlasmaBall, and the only reason I replied to his post. Trump did not violate the ceasefire, as far as we know, and we can't take Iran's word that he did. You made me think you believed otherwise when you wrote "believing the side that has acted more credibly," since now you elaborate that you believe neither. I would describe some of your characterizations as Iran being transparent about their aims. It's not that remarkable given their strategic situation. They had one strategic card to play (would have been 2 if they got nuclear weapons) and they played it. They are obviously unwilling to surrender that bargaining chip for a ceasefire, since their enemy is vulnerable to the economic effects of disrupted trade. They have less vulnerability. Many of their leaders are willing to die to achieve their political/religious goals. Both the US and Iran have a high rate of dishonesty (in the pursuit of their interests) in this conflict that exceeds my willingness to talk about their truthfulness relative to each other. I say this particularly because there's no leaked audio/transcript or signed document to judge in an absolute sense. The international situation, or the local military situation, or the domestic political situation shifts and suddenly the incentives change and dictate behavior. On April 10 2026 05:26 Dan HH wrote:
Opening the strait went so well that they had to send Melania to hold a press conference about Epstein and bring him back to the top of the headline pile I hope the new meme is that Trump does everything to distract from Iran instead of Trump does everything to distract from Epstein. The old one was getting stale. On April 10 2026 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The US will really change the day people stop thinking that sending someone to jail for 18 years for a petty crime is ok, or that firemen should be a collective service and not ignore your burning house when you haven’t paid your little subscription. Two bad examples that only serve to show a lack of knowledge about what the US believes "is ok." You'll need broad, national examples and polling to make the point about "the US" and not cherry-picked examples with missing context that could be provided to make the opposite point better. I mean polling is all well and good, but if x thing exists, and has existed for decades+, I think it’s broadly OK to say there’s some tacit acceptance of that status quo being exemplified. Weight of sentiment does come into it as well, I mean an issue can be split 50/50 in favourability, but in this hypothetical if one group really cares about x issue, and the other much less, it’s not really a 50/50 in reality. The US has many such ‘quirks’ rather alien to us other ANZACs or Euros, plenty of which either a high minority or majority of Americans think are undesirable, end of the day they’re still there. From cursory (non-exhaustive) Googling, I mean take healthcare. There’s a majority in favour in the States for some form of nationalised healthcare, but like 20-30% lower than in places like the UK that I had a gander at. It also drops when tax bumps are added into the question, into minority favourability. Same with public healthcare supplanting and not supplementing people’s private care. I mean how do we parse that? A majority say they’re in favour, but that becomes a minority when it comes to actually doing it, so are they really in favour? Regardless of my ramblings I assume all Biff meant was that if the US can’t align in certain areas with even merely centrist equivalent contemporary nations, of which I’d class the UK by European standards, they sure ain’t gonna go socialist anytime soon One of the “quirks” is federalism. If X state does something, you can’t say the US is ok with it. If Y city or county does something, it doesn’t mean the US is ok with it. The people who aren’t ok with it never made that law, or repealed a law, etc. Because of the great number of things some citizens aren’t ok with, and others are, we adopted limiting lines so we can all coexist. And then you get into the problem of demonstrating you’re not ok with it through civil protest or taking up arms against your own government. Are you ok with it, or are you just not on board with the steps it would take? Hence, polling. If you have further, you should really look into the specific cited examples and answer the question, “Do you agree that these are poor examples both for lacking context and aren’t national examples?” I’ve run into some posts that are tangents and not replies. The main points are in total agreement, though unmentioned.
> If X state does something, you can’t say the US is ok with it. If Y city or county does something, it doesn’t mean the US is ok with it. The people who aren’t ok with it never made that law, or repealed a law, etc. Because of the great number of things some citizens aren’t ok with, and others are, we adopted limiting lines so we can all coexist.
I don't have any disagreement with this opinion it seems perfectly valid, but at the same time it also feels like an "excuse" ? Because the EU is also a federation, much more culturally diverse than the american federation (everyone speaks a different language and some were enemies for hundreds of years), but yet it seems that we have much less dissent and infighting to get to where the majority wants to go. The bits that are completely up to the nations/states themselves seem much more in agreement with each other
|
On April 12 2026 22:59 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2026 02:18 dyhb wrote:On April 11 2026 01:21 WombaT wrote:On April 11 2026 00:04 dyhb wrote:On April 10 2026 21:28 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 23:18 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 14:12 dyhb wrote:On April 09 2026 08:12 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 09 2026 07:45 dyhb wrote:
[quote]And since it's Iran, not Trump, we have to believe them!
(I beg you to have the barest form of common sense when it comes to the world's largest state funder of terrorism. Just because they say Trump agreed to force Israel to end its attacks in Lebanon, cease all drone overflights, and tolerate uranium enrichment, doesn't mean anything of the kind was agreed upon prior to the ceasefire. The opposite of trusting Trump is not declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump.) Well, Iran has a recent history of just not agreeing to a ceasefire, and the US has a (less) recent history of attacking Iran during negotiation or breaking a ceasefire. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'. You seem to show a recency-bias on your thinking patterns without justifying yourself. I'd simply call it ignoring history. Year after year of absolutely lying to the IAEA on their nuclear development, sanitizing locations, stopping inspectors. Denying assistance to the Houthis, in the past also to Hezbollah, among other routine attempts to deny assistance to their proxies. That and the fact that if Iran didn't want a ceasefire and just wanted to keep the strait closed, then they had no incentive to agree to one in the first place given their stated, and well justified, distrust of US 'negotiation'.
That and there is the distinct possibility that there is only an agreement in principle to a ceasefire, and noone has actually agreed to actual terms. So both sides just operate under what think they can and can't do, and will accuse the opposition of violating what they think shouldn't be done.
We could just be watching in real time, both sides discover that they don't actually have terms both sides can agree to for a ceasefire. I say both sides, because I have a hard time believing Israel even want a ceasefire, so it's really only the US and Iran negotiating. They certainly want one on their terms, since agreeing to a ceasefire that only binds their opponents and still allows them threats or tolls on passing ships is a win-win. I don't claim to know precisely what was agreed to in principle. I know enough that stating Iran's *claims about what happened* as absolute fact (that the US violated the ceasefire) is ignorance or indifference to truth. It could be that the framework was simply that the US and Iran stop their attacks/threatened attacks on the country and civilian vessels while negotiations continue to how to make it last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of ' believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war'Oh no, I'm showing recency bias, when talking about conduct during a war that just got hot a little over a month ago. I mean, what that source is claiming, is not very far fetched. Israel has verifiably continued its attacks in Lebanon. It's difficult to imagine a world where the US said 'go ahead on your nuclear program', we don't know about the drone, but again... not exactly farfetched that a drone flew over Iranian airspace. The source did not even claim that the US agreed to these conditions, in fact the phrasing is their '10-point ceasefire proposal'. While I'm not sure calling this 'Trump violating the ceasefire' is very accurate, do you have any reason to doubt 'Iran's *claims about what happened'? Given one of his points is verifiably true, one would be difficult to imagine being untrue, and the third being not really an extraordinary claim. I'd say it's more of a case that this ceasefire had very few terms and conditions to begin with, let alone any they actually agree on and we are just seeing two sides confirm there is little common ground for a ceasefire to actually take effect. You just gotta hand it to the bloodthirsty state sponsors of terrorism that kill 30,000 of their own people: they just run the most credible wars. The wars where they're attacking non-parties with missiles, you know. Very credibleSorry, it reeks of bias. Particularly, calling their habit of lying in support of their regime as not germane to their credibility, and a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth. Two final things, since you've strayed from the post I wrote in ways that muddy up the issue. First, I gather you now agree with me that "Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire" is inaccurate? Remember, it's a positive statement of fact. That you both know what the terms were, and know that Trump violated them, simply because Iran told you. If you never disagreed with my post, just tell me. Second, why on earth does one side's penchant for lying mean you have to downrate the other's penchant for lying? I expect both to lie in their self-interest. That makes the search for the truth of it more difficult. My posts have never been to agree with DPB's assertion that Trump has violated the ceasefire, I said as much when I that this conclusion does not actually follow from the source he is quoting. I didn't even think there were enough terms discussed (much less agreed to) for a ceasefire beyond both sides vaguely agreeing there exist a list of demands for each side where they would agree to stop fighting if such demands are met. Subsequent statements by Sharif frankly seem to suggest they did seem to indicate agreement to some terms. My assertion was always just that Iran's statements about this war have been remarkably straight-foward and accurate. They have stated right from the beginning that they were prepared to weather a considerable amount of decapitation of their leadership structure, they warned they were going to close the Hormuz strait. They warned they were going to strike regional US allies. I say remarkably straight forward, because I don't expect this level of directness of any country engaged in, or about to engage in a war. They have communicated (threatened really) a clear strategic approach, then executed it. In contrast, the US communications during the war seem to suggest even THEY don't know what their strategic approach is. It's difficult to be credible when you are making 180 degree turns on goals and grand strategy every few days. Trump has also repeatedly claimed that Iran have either: initiated negotiations, already conducted good talks etc, while Iran have repeatedly denied this. Look, I don't care who the two parties are, if one side is claiming there are productive talks between the two sides, while the other side shows complete disinterest, I'm believing the complete disinterest. So when it comes to statements on where they think they stand in this war in terms of what they are going to do next, their receptiveness to negotiation, or in this case, whether they consider themselves still in and bound by a ceasefire. Iran has been far more credible. To your point on past Iranian dishonesty: Firstly, to use your own words "a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth." I don't find either side to be of a particularly (or even generally) honest nature. I don't need them to be. Despite whatever dishonesty, Iranian statements about about the goings on of this war have a remarkable (again, in the literal sense, not that they are all true, just that they overall tell a pretty accurate story) conformity to reality in a way US statements do not. I'm interested in knowing, to the best available information what's going on and where each side stands, not an emotional investment in the 'our honest good guys' being more virtuous than the 'their dishonest bad guys'. There are frankly here at least three sets of 'dishonest bad guys' and I hope they all lose. In the meantime I'm going to give more credence to statements from one that has consistently stood up better to reality over the course of this war. Then you agree with me on the only points I sought to make to DarkPlasmaBall, and the only reason I replied to his post. Trump did not violate the ceasefire, as far as we know, and we can't take Iran's word that he did. You made me think you believed otherwise when you wrote "believing the side that has acted more credibly," since now you elaborate that you believe neither. I would describe some of your characterizations as Iran being transparent about their aims. It's not that remarkable given their strategic situation. They had one strategic card to play (would have been 2 if they got nuclear weapons) and they played it. They are obviously unwilling to surrender that bargaining chip for a ceasefire, since their enemy is vulnerable to the economic effects of disrupted trade. They have less vulnerability. Many of their leaders are willing to die to achieve their political/religious goals. Both the US and Iran have a high rate of dishonesty (in the pursuit of their interests) in this conflict that exceeds my willingness to talk about their truthfulness relative to each other. I say this particularly because there's no leaked audio/transcript or signed document to judge in an absolute sense. The international situation, or the local military situation, or the domestic political situation shifts and suddenly the incentives change and dictate behavior. On April 10 2026 05:26 Dan HH wrote:
Opening the strait went so well that they had to send Melania to hold a press conference about Epstein and bring him back to the top of the headline pile I hope the new meme is that Trump does everything to distract from Iran instead of Trump does everything to distract from Epstein. The old one was getting stale. On April 10 2026 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The US will really change the day people stop thinking that sending someone to jail for 18 years for a petty crime is ok, or that firemen should be a collective service and not ignore your burning house when you haven’t paid your little subscription. Two bad examples that only serve to show a lack of knowledge about what the US believes "is ok." You'll need broad, national examples and polling to make the point about "the US" and not cherry-picked examples with missing context that could be provided to make the opposite point better. I mean polling is all well and good, but if x thing exists, and has existed for decades+, I think it’s broadly OK to say there’s some tacit acceptance of that status quo being exemplified. Weight of sentiment does come into it as well, I mean an issue can be split 50/50 in favourability, but in this hypothetical if one group really cares about x issue, and the other much less, it’s not really a 50/50 in reality. The US has many such ‘quirks’ rather alien to us other ANZACs or Euros, plenty of which either a high minority or majority of Americans think are undesirable, end of the day they’re still there. From cursory (non-exhaustive) Googling, I mean take healthcare. There’s a majority in favour in the States for some form of nationalised healthcare, but like 20-30% lower than in places like the UK that I had a gander at. It also drops when tax bumps are added into the question, into minority favourability. Same with public healthcare supplanting and not supplementing people’s private care. I mean how do we parse that? A majority say they’re in favour, but that becomes a minority when it comes to actually doing it, so are they really in favour? Regardless of my ramblings I assume all Biff meant was that if the US can’t align in certain areas with even merely centrist equivalent contemporary nations, of which I’d class the UK by European standards, they sure ain’t gonna go socialist anytime soon One of the “quirks” is federalism. If X state does something, you can’t say the US is ok with it. If Y city or county does something, it doesn’t mean the US is ok with it. The people who aren’t ok with it never made that law, or repealed a law, etc. Because of the great number of things some citizens aren’t ok with, and others are, we adopted limiting lines so we can all coexist. And then you get into the problem of demonstrating you’re not ok with it through civil protest or taking up arms against your own government. Are you ok with it, or are you just not on board with the steps it would take? Hence, polling. If you have further, you should really look into the specific cited examples and answer the question, “Do you agree that these are poor examples both for lacking context and aren’t national examples?” I’ve run into some posts that are tangents and not replies. The main points are in total agreement, though unmentioned. > If X state does something, you can’t say the US is ok with it. If Y city or county does something, it doesn’t mean the US is ok with it. The people who aren’t ok with it never made that law, or repealed a law, etc. Because of the great number of things some citizens aren’t ok with, and others are, we adopted limiting lines so we can all coexist. I don't have any disagreement with this opinion it seems perfectly valid, but at the same time it also feels like an "excuse" ? Because the EU is also a federation, much more culturally diverse than the american federation (everyone speaks a different language and some were enemies for hundreds of years), but yet it seems that we have much less dissent and infighting to get to where the majority wants to go. The bits that are completely up to the nations/states themselves seem much more in agreement with each other You can still talk about what’s shared across the EU, while also separately talking about what’s confined to just Spain or just Ireland. The US has national elections and national polling for people interested in what’s shared.
I don’t know about the “seems that we have much less dissent and infighting.” The gains of the far right parties across many EU member states suggest to me that it isn’t too far off. Including the loss of an EU member.
|
United States45487 Posts
On April 12 2026 20:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Why is everyone making fun of Kristi Noem's husband?
Who do you mean by "everyone"? Because it's obviously not everyone, in the traditional sense of the word.
|
On April 12 2026 13:58 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2026 12:25 KwarK wrote:
After half a day of talks Vance has given up and is flying back to the US. Weird to declare a ceasefire for negotiations and then immediately give up on them, makes you wonder if the whole ceasefire thing was just a panic way of adding two weeks to the deadline after the terrorism threats failed. Not surprised, this has been a trend. Have you noticed that whenever Trump meets in person with someone he's antagonized online (Zelensky, von der Leyden, Mamdani, etc) he immediately softens up his position, but whenever he sends his ass-kissing acolytes they get 0 diplomacy done cause they're entirely focused on proving to him how tough they are?
I wonder if that is on purpose to keep the "Trump is the great negotiator" myth alive. Only he can make the deal. Sure all he does is TACO and give everything. But his base still fawns over him for whatever dumb tweet he says about his big win.
|
|
|
On April 12 2026 23:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2026 20:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Why is everyone making fun of Kristi Noem's husband?
Who do you mean by "everyone"? Because it's obviously not everyone, in the traditional sense of the word.
If you understand that jimmyJRaynor is a huge wrestling fan and see his posts as his version of being a "heel", they all make a lot more sense. He basically just writes whatever he thinks will get a reaction. Catches some meme on his boomer facebook feed about how the left is hypocrites because they are making fun of Noem and her Husband. Then he brings it to us with his style.
There is really no point diving deeper, because you've already reached his depths.
|
So in true schoolyard bully Trump has decided that the best response to Iran closing the strait is for the US to close the strait as well.
www.bbc.com
Now we get to double blame the US for destroying the world economy. What possible use Trump thinks he will get out of this is any ones guess. Sure Iran doesn't get to collect a toll but they won't care. They will just sit and wait for for the world to pressure the US to gtfo.
(ofcourse this ignores the real reason, that this will cause another spike in oil prices and people who has insider info on this will again make a ton of money)
|
On April 13 2026 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:So in true schoolyard bully Trump has decided that the best response to Iran closing the strait is for the US to close the strait as well. www.bbc.comNow we get to double blame the US for destroying the world economy. What possible use Trump thinks he will get out of this is any ones guess. Sure Iran doesn't get to collect a toll but they won't care. They will just sit and wait for for the world to pressure the US to gtfo. (ofcourse this ignores the real reason, that this will cause another spike in oil prices and people who has insider info on this will again make a ton of money)
It reminds me of
"You can't fire me, I QUIT!"
|
On April 13 2026 00:32 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2026 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:So in true schoolyard bully Trump has decided that the best response to Iran closing the strait is for the US to close the strait as well. www.bbc.comNow we get to double blame the US for destroying the world economy. What possible use Trump thinks he will get out of this is any ones guess. Sure Iran doesn't get to collect a toll but they won't care. They will just sit and wait for for the world to pressure the US to gtfo. (ofcourse this ignores the real reason, that this will cause another spike in oil prices and people who has insider info on this will again make a ton of money) It reminds me of "You can't fire me, I QUIT!" you can just hear the smack as the entire world facepalms at once.
|
Trump can do it. Therapy is available. They have the technology. They can rebuild him so he kills less people.
It‘s within reach not to wake up every day and cowabunga some random shit.
|
I mean Iran primarily let their own and "allied" nation's tankers through... like Chinese or Russian for example. so the more aggrieved parties the merrier then?
now if only they kept doing talks and summits at half the rate of - and crucially before - pissing away precious rocket stockpiles in record time...
the JCPOA took about 20 months to achieve. I can see how that seems too long for the social media age POTUS primarily governing by Executive Order and made up powers being contested by the courts.
nonetheless it did not ruin everyone's day and making it clear whose favorite and very dear President is responsible. and it worked before being torpedoed...
|
Northern Ireland26572 Posts
On April 13 2026 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:So in true schoolyard bully Trump has decided that the best response to Iran closing the strait is for the US to close the strait as well. www.bbc.comNow we get to double blame the US for destroying the world economy. What possible use Trump thinks he will get out of this is any ones guess. Sure Iran doesn't get to collect a toll but they won't care. They will just sit and wait for for the world to pressure the US to gtfo. (ofcourse this ignores the real reason, that this will cause another spike in oil prices and people who has insider info on this will again make a ton of money)
Can this lot just please, kindly, fuck off already?
Oh my good lord how do you fuck up this consistently and this badly? It’s like a performance art piece on how not to do statecraft.
How do you manage to make the Iranians seem the adults in the room?
I suppose it’s a relatively nascent clusterfuck, but I do wonder if it persists if it’s going to create a schism to Europe, NATO etc that’s irresolvable in the medium term at least.
Tariff bollocks or Greenland nonsense, that kinda shit feels in the extremely irritating but weatherable category.
A potentially elongated cost of living crisis entirely driven by Israel and the US? Well that’s a can of worms we’d rather not be in possession of
What better way to destabilise Europe that has broadly resisted the far right knocking on the door than another economic crisis? It may be entirely incidental and I’m not one for conspiracy theories generally but Trump and those in his orbit have a pretty long record of interjecting to destabilise multilateral institutions and support the far right this side of the Atlantic.
It feels too sophisticated and elegant for a gang with such a track record of rank incompetence but I’ll nonetheless throw it out with those caveats in mind.
As for your ‘real reason’, I’d be actively surprised if that weren’t the case. It’s beyond scandalous, probably treasonous and (in theory) should be something people agree with across the political spectrum.
And like many things with this sorry shower, is a new thing in the modern era. Profiting from having an inside track is not obviously, but (seemingly) pursuing actively asinine foreign policy moves to specifically enable it is. And yes obviously past interjections in say the Americas were frequently egregious and hideous, but I think you can say various movers and shakers believed (IMO erroneously) that they were justifiable moves in America’s interests.
Nobody with a functional brain on this topic believes such concepts motivate this mob. It’s 70s glam rock levels of in-your-face unsubtle corruption and cronyism
They don’t even have the somewhat reasonable electoral mandate from their base excuse anymore
|
Northern Ireland26572 Posts
On April 13 2026 00:37 Vivax wrote:
Trump can do it. Therapy is available. They have the technology. They can rebuild him so he kills less people.
It‘s within reach not to wake up every day and cowabunga some random shit.
The technology in question is probably a firearm tbf, therapy has its limits
Alternatively if Trump had one person in his orbit that could tell him that he’s wrong on well, anything and be listened to, and were themselves competent that would be lovely.
I’m reminded a lot of Kanye West in this regard. He’s clearly surrounded by yes men and nobody that can say ‘you’re clearly unwell atm’ or ‘maybe don’t release a song called Heil Hitler’
As shit as Trump is, folks who can recognise he’s an idiot narcissist and still proceed to gargle his balls are more contemptible still in my book
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
