EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5665
| 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 | ||
|
Introvert
United States4996 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6247 Posts
On April 14 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote: You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity. I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46106 Posts
On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote: The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda Except a presidential candidate could tell the truth about the border crisis instead of lying about it. Being worried about illegal immigration is one thing, but being gullible enough to believe that all the illegals are rapists and murders and dog devourers is another thing. It is possible to talk about immigration without being racist, yet the parts that resonated most with MAGA were the racist lies. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2767 Posts
On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote: The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda Yep, that's the difference between the left and right. The left believes in objective reality. The right believes it's justifiable to lie your ass off because they'll ride into power on brainless xenophobia. To your credit, it worked. The next Democratic nominee for President should promise a fifty trillion dollar budget surplus while cutting 100% of taxes for everyone not a billionaire. You might think that's ridiculous and a lie, but voters know that there's a structural inequality in the world that's benefiting the ultra-rich. On April 14 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote: I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference. I also agree with this. Perhaps the next Democratic nominee for President should implicate themselves as a rapist so Republican voters can say "hey, maybe they're not so different from me after all?" | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10908 Posts
On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote: The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda That you are able to write something like this and not spontanously combust into flames is proof that there is no (moral) god. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6247 Posts
On April 14 2026 23:55 LightSpectra wrote: I also agree with this. Perhaps the next Democratic nominee for President should implicate themselves as a rapist so Republican voters can say "hey, maybe they're not so different from me after all?" Garbage take. Republican voters do not think Trump is a rapist. That's the point. That's not why they voted for him so it wouldn't be why they would vote for a Democrat instead. McCain and Romney didn't lose up until 2016 because the party didn't go far enough rapist. You need at some point to develop a theory of mind that plausibly accounts for what motivates people who think differently from you. Even JUST on paper Biden edges out Kamala. More time in the Senate. Twice the VP term. History of having done some things rather than be a "competent bureaucrat" if that exists and isn't an oxymoron which God knows why any American would want their leader to be a bureaucrat. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2767 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6247 Posts
On April 15 2026 00:14 LightSpectra wrote: Perhaps Americans would want a competent bureaucrat to be in charge so they don't start a winnable war against Iran and then immediately surrender because they thought they were smarter than people with actual experience? Actual experience. You're in the mode of say something random because it might sound good without double checking that the words contain meaning that agrees with what you actually think. The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are literal combat veterans. Nobody has surrendered to Iran. On the contrary, UAE and Saudis would love to see Iran pursued to the end. US destroyers, the mortal enemy of Iran, transiting a strait Iran said was "closed." Want to choose the next non sequitur to do a random smartass bounce to, or shall I guess first? | ||
KwarK
United States44122 Posts
| ||
|
dyhb
United States430 Posts
On April 14 2026 19:23 Luolis wrote: "Return to equality" and its the largest overton window movement to the right as possible lmao. On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote: It applies.Those accustomed to dominance view equality as oppression. On April 14 2026 18:37 WombaT wrote: To siphon through the bolded in sequence - I wasn’t. Bush was a thing, my own country had a centre-right government for 14 years. - What equality are you referring to? - I can, and will join Hillary Clinton in doing so. - Half of which aren’t especially popular at all We may see a carrying of the day nonetheless. But Hillary didn’t lose to like Jeb Bush, she lost to Donald Trump. And a Donald who got a second term. I’m not sure who the ‘you’ is here, but hey. The idea that it’s some domain of policy particulars these days is fanciful to me. They elected an idiot first time around, they elected a Fascist strongman who’d precipitated an insurrection attempt the second time around. Strong candidate there On April 14 2026 20:02 WombaT wrote: The conversation you're having in the second post is why I do think you've been accustomed to dominance, and the retreat from that cultural and political dominance is the true cause of all this deflection to alleged racism and sexism. It's been enough years. Let's talk about the major contributors to defeats in a way that can correct them, and leave the "But I have three news stories here that totally show the undercurrent had a noticeable impact stop dismissing me" to the people intent on losing 2028. I don't want to see that crew's self-serving justifications if Dems manage to throw 2028, because I wager it will make today's majoring in the minors feel quaint.Hey remember when a President had to deal with conspiracies about where they were born and if they were eligible for the Presidency (including from the current President) that totally had nothing to do with their skin colour at all? Or how the Republican Party has gone insane post Obama, or how some of its base are now so obsessed with ‘DEI’ etc? Obviously the glass ceiling of a black President being broken had all positive impacts, and negative ones are impossible to consider. Racism stopped being a thing in 2008. It also can’t it simultaneously the case that a candidate can have flaws that explain their failure, but that sexism was also a factor in some way? We’ve also solved sexism too, I can’t put as precise a date on it as when we sorted racism, but it’s sorted. Not a factor anymore, phew. Man if only I could emigrate to this glorious land of equality I mean I don’t think the post-Obama backlash is remotely entirely racist in nature, nor Clinton and especially Harris’ failure is necessarily down to sexism. Merely a factor On April 14 2026 22:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: Eloquent compared to Trump is like saying sober compared to a Kennedy. Of all Democratic presidential candidates for the last 30 years, Kamala rated in the bottom if not absolute last in terms of eloquence. Al Gore could give her a run in that competition, and I don't want to be unfair to him. Wooden delivery, similar awkwardness, but less vague, and more able to translate ideas into complete sentences.I said “compared to Trump”. She is smart, she is eloquent, she has tons of experience. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2767 Posts
On April 15 2026 00:26 oBlade wrote: Actual experience. You're in the mode of say something random because it might sound good without double checking that the words contain meaning that agrees with what you actually think. The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are literal combat veterans. Nobody has surrendered to Iran. On the contrary, UAE and Saudis would love to see Iran pursued to the end. US destroyers, the mortal enemy of Iran, transiting a strait Iran said was "closed." Want to choose the next non sequitur to do a random smartass bounce to, or shall I guess first? I'm reminded of a Confederacy apologist who once confidently told me "how can you say the Confederate States of America lost the war when they won so big at Bull Run and Chickamauga and Chancellorsville?" Edit: I forgot to mention, he also argued that Lincoln being assassinated means the Union can't claim they won. I guess it was a regime change the same way Khameini Sr. dying is? | ||
|
oBlade
United States6247 Posts
On April 15 2026 01:10 LightSpectra wrote: I'm reminded of a Confederacy apologist who once confidently told me "how can you say the Confederate States of America lost the war when they won so big at Bull Run and Chickamauga and Chancellorsville?" Yep great new direction, never would have guessed it. What do you consider Iran's Gettysburg and Vicksburg to be? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2767 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6247 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2767 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27016 Posts
On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote: The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1156 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46106 Posts
On April 15 2026 02:10 KT_Elwood wrote: Being on brand, the "Trump Blockade" is leaky. Chinese ships pass the blockade no problem. Confirmed (twice): "A U.S.-sanctioned Chinese tanker tested President Trump’s new blockade on travel through the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, passing through the trading corridor to the Gulf of Oman. ... Another U.S.-sanctioned Chinese tanker, Murlikishan, passed through the strait from the opposite direction and is currently located in the Persian Gulf." https://thehill.com/policy/international/5830128-chinese-tanker-strait-hormuz-blockade/ Good to know that Trump is helping the Chinese, I guess. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11898 Posts
On April 15 2026 02:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Confirmed (twice): "A U.S.-sanctioned Chinese tanker tested President Trump’s new blockade on travel through the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, passing through the trading corridor to the Gulf of Oman. ... Another U.S.-sanctioned Chinese tanker, Murlikishan, passed through the strait from the opposite direction and is currently located in the Persian Gulf." https://thehill.com/policy/international/5830128-chinese-tanker-strait-hormuz-blockade/ Good to know that Trump is helping the Chinese, I guess. My guess is that this is just another example of Trump just saying shit on Twitter, and then not doing the actual work to make that reality. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2767 Posts
| ||
| ||
