EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5658
| 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 | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3265 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28900 Posts
| ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1757 Posts
On April 13 2026 22:47 LightSpectra wrote: If wikipedia is accurate, there's only evidence for about half being bilingual. Not counting Richard Nixon who spoke fluent bullshit. Yeah, and I guess you can say that early USA didn't get homogenized yet, and plenty of other reasons for this trend, I just think it's very depressing that, on average, people speaking more languages then their own went from 25 % to over 50 % while in the US the presidents went in the other direction: ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Languages_Spoke_by_US_Presidents.png/960px-Languages_Spoke_by_US_Presidents.png) Plus, Trump decided to double down on this "being proud of only speaking English" idiocracy bullshit by putting out an EO stating as such, as if it wasn't already so. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24369 Posts
On April 13 2026 18:22 EnDeR_ wrote: The combination, yes. The DNC choosing to pull their weight behind Kamala and the voters just going for it. I honestly hope they are not that dumb. Currently they are, but I suppose there's time for that to change. Harris:____26.4% Newsome:_19.4% Buttigieg:__10.5% AOC:______7.9% Shapiro:____6.5% https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/democratic-primary/2028/national Your most hopeful sign is that she is still somehow 4th in her home state. What the DNC decides to do with NH will probably be critical for Buttigieg. Newsome is the obvious "underdog" who is probably also currently the one most aggressively campaigning for Republican votes with rhetoric and actions they like to see. Harris, Newsome, Buttigieg, AOC are the candidates people currently might have a chance to choose from (I think the primary typically gets decided before most of us vote in it), and that's being generous to AOC. If people have a preference they genuinely want to see win, they need to start working on it now. Especially if it isn't Harris or Newsome (are one of these two everyone's preference?). Otherwise their "choice" will be made for them long before they even get to vote. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3265 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24369 Posts
On April 13 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote: All of them would be great presidents and I'd be proud to cast a vote for any one of them. My primary vote will exclusively be for whomever I think is most likely to win the general election in November 2028. I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? Those are questions to any/everyone btw. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1757 Posts
I understood nominating her after Biden dropped out, I think she would have made an OK technocratic president and given the good trends coming in 2025 she might have coasted and been remembered as a good one, but she lost, and this is never going to go away, nominating her again would be an incredible self own and it would mirror Biden's horrific egoistic decision. In the end, a monkey on pcp would be a better president then Trump, so I'm sure if a relatively free elections take place even Harris and Newsome can win, but, as always, US politics are very depressing for anyone who wants to see USA become a normal country in the long run. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27448 Posts
On April 13 2026 23:18 Jankisa wrote: Yeah, and I guess you can say that early USA didn't get homogenized yet, and plenty of other reasons for this trend, I just think it's very depressing that, on average, people speaking more languages then their own went from 25 % to over 50 % while in the US the presidents went in the other direction: Plus, Trump decided to double down on this "being proud of only speaking English" idiocracy bullshit by putting out an EO stating as such, as if it wasn't already so. It is very difficult though to be fair. Getting good practice in when your mother tongue is the lingua franca already is bloomin’ hard. I think sometimes it’s attributed purely to insularity when that’s not necessarily the case. Making a virtue of it is idiocy, so no surprises Trump has done that. I’d be interested to see how much of that 25% increase in people speaking other languages other than their own are simply people who grew up in households where their family primarily spoke another language. It’s on my personal bucket list to be at least semi-fluent in another language, but not something I think is really feasible unless I move somewhere else. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3265 Posts
On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Because if everyone thought like that we'd never get anything done, and I don't think I'm privileged enough to throw away my vote when everyone else is expected to vote intelligently. Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? The election's two years away and not everyone has thrown their hat in the ring yet, so anything I say is most likely going to age really poorly. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27448 Posts
On April 14 2026 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm curious, why? Your individual vote likely won't be determinative (even if you're in a state that might matter). Why not just vote for the candidate that most aligns with your politics in a (likely meaningless) primary? Who do you currently think that is (both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics) and based on what? How will you go about determining that? Those are questions to any/everyone btw. You ask a lot more questions than you ever deign to answer lad | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46480 Posts
On April 13 2026 23:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: So buttigieg? I probably wouldn't be super mad at that, though I'd still want to see/hear from all the candidates first. I'm not putting too much stock into such early polls either. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24369 Posts
On April 14 2026 00:43 LightSpectra wrote: Because if everyone thought like that we'd never get anything done, and I don't think I'm privileged enough to throw away my vote when everyone else is expected to vote intelligently. The election's two years away and not everyone has thrown their hat in the ring yet, so anything I say is most likely going to age really poorly. We're talking about a primary, not the general election. I was told here previously that primary was the part where you could/should vote for who best aligned with you and the general election was when the "responsible/pragmatic" thing to do was fall in line. Perhaps the "most likely to win", but who most aligns with you is something you can/should probably already have an idea about and be skeptical of how much any candidate rhetorically changes their current positions to better align with other positions later. What you currently base their alignment off and the sort of metrics and ideas of how you will determine both who is most likely to win and who best aligns with your politics are also things you don't really have to worry about "aging poorly" On April 14 2026 00:47 WombaT wrote: You ask a lot more questions than you ever deign to answer lad I'll come back to this later if you'd like (or if you and Ender would prefer to take it to my Blog I suppose that'd be fine). You guys are just on the verge of having something resembling a real discussion about the future of the opposition to Trump/Republicans and I'd like to see that develop. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3265 Posts
If someone like Tulsi Gabbard or John Fetterman were a frontrunner, then my take would be "anyone who beats them". | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27448 Posts
On April 14 2026 00:43 LightSpectra wrote: Because if everyone thought like that we'd never get anything done, and I don't think I'm privileged enough to throw away my vote when everyone else is expected to vote intelligently. The election's two years away and not everyone has thrown their hat in the ring yet, so anything I say is most likely going to age really poorly. Yeah, much can change. Prior to this Iran fiasco I felt the Dems might have to work a bit, but would be favourites for the White House. Now, especially if it drags on, they could almost run a corpse and win. But that could completely flip in the next 2 years, so who knows? The worse Trump does, for me the higher the likelihood of a very stable, boring, unambiguous centrist type taking the Dem mantle. ‘Anything but that’ will carry the day. By falling in line and fellating the lad across two terms the GOP can’t realistically demarcate and divorce themselves from Trump and MAGA this cycle, so it’s going to be a referendum on that, and a referendum I’d be staggered if they won. The Dems would have a much harder job if wider conservatism was more obviously factionalised and say, a sensible centre-right candidate could emerge to pivot away from the populist stuff or whatever. Ya go full Trump loyalism and the coming election becomes a referendum on that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22630 Posts
On April 14 2026 00:36 Jankisa wrote: 2.5 years out, the campaign hasn't even begun yet. Whoever is #1 is there purely on name recognition, not policy or personality.I find it extremely depressing that Harris is still #1 after ushering in Trump 2.0. I understood nominating her after Biden dropped out, I think she would have made an OK technocratic president and given the good trends coming in 2025 she might have coasted and been remembered as a good one, but she lost, and this is never going to go away, nominating her again would be an incredible self own and it would mirror Biden's horrific egoistic decision. In the end, a monkey on pcp would be a better president then Trump, so I'm sure if a relatively free elections take place even Harris and Newsome can win, but, as always, US politics are very depressing for anyone who wants to see USA become a normal country in the long run. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27448 Posts
On April 14 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I probably wouldn't be super mad at that, though I'd still want to see/hear from all the candidates first. I'm not putting too much stock into such early polls either. Yeah we’re far enough out that name recognition is probably carrying a lot of water here Also happy cake day! | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22630 Posts
On April 13 2026 23:18 Jankisa wrote: I take issue with this picture.Yeah, and I guess you can say that early USA didn't get homogenized yet, and plenty of other reasons for this trend, I just think it's very depressing that, on average, people speaking more languages then their own went from 25 % to over 50 % while in the US the presidents went in the other direction: Plus, Trump decided to double down on this "being proud of only speaking English" idiocracy bullshit by putting out an EO stating as such, as if it wasn't already so. Trump is not fluent in english... | ||
KwarK
United States44352 Posts
On April 14 2026 01:04 Gorsameth wrote: 2.5 years out, the campaign hasn't even begun yet. Whoever is #1 is there purely on name recognition, not policy or personality. You also don’t want to give conservative media too much time to convince everyone that the candidate was secretly behind Ben Ghazi’s death. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1757 Posts
On April 14 2026 00:39 WombaT wrote: It is very difficult though to be fair. Getting good practice in when your mother tongue is the lingua franca already is bloomin’ hard. I think sometimes it’s attributed purely to insularity when that’s not necessarily the case. Making a virtue of it is idiocy, so no surprises Trump has done that. I’d be interested to see how much of that 25% increase in people speaking other languages other than their own are simply people who grew up in households where their family primarily spoke another language. It’s on my personal bucket list to be at least semi-fluent in another language, but not something I think is really feasible unless I move somewhere else. Well, if you look at it from a different perspective, unless they are from a very rural and insulated town, an average American will encounter immigrants who might speak other languages quite often. There are over 68 million Latin Americans, I would imagine that gives you plenty of opportunity, as an average American, to try and practice Spanish. That, plus the fact that learning an language is easier today then ever before (tons of Apps, AI actually being pretty decent for helping to get going), the internet being a thing, it just gives us opportunities we never had before, I think a large chunk of that global % going up in the last few decades is due to that. I never learned English in school, I absorbed it through media (Cartoon network mostly) as a kid, after a while, as a kid who was curious about computers, I basically had to learn a bunch of it, and then that helped me be better at things like Wc3 and WOW where I found first communities that would help me with it. When I was 14, I created a forum page for a Wc3 custom map clan as a way of bribing them to give me a position on the team, and there was a very, very lengthy page there that was focused on analyzing all the official posts and OP threads I started to help me with my grammar. On the other side, while all this was happening I was struggling, daily to get by with German in school, I barely passed but even today, when I go to Germany I can understand what people are saying if they are trying to speak slowly to me, and I can get back to them if needed, with some gesticulations and English help, of course. When I went to Netherlands to live, I started Duolingo and even tho Amsterdam is extremely international, and so was my Company, I made an effort to learn it, at least to the point where I could greet people or order something, it wasn't much and the German helped, but the few Dutch folks at work appreciated the effort. So, yeah, I do think the easiest paths to learn are by growing up bilingual or moving somewhere, but there is a lot of tools and ways to get better without doing that, and I think most people would agree that knowing more languages can only be beneficial to you, plus it's fun. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46480 Posts
On April 14 2026 01:05 WombaT wrote: Yeah we’re far enough out that name recognition is probably carrying a lot of water here Also happy cake day! Thank you! I wonder if any of the more seasoned candidates will update their policy positions from when they ran in 2016 or 2020. A lot has happened since then. | ||
| ||
