|
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 |
It's trivial to think of examples of myself in my own personal life exhibiting sexism, be it misgendering a female character in a game because male is the default (I did this literally last night many times) or consistently getting stuck in defensive masculine loops with male friends, but sure yeah sexism doesn't exist and trump having only won against women is irrelevant yepyep.
-I- am sexist, you fucking snowflakes. It's part of our culture, and while yes genders are different it makes no sense to wave away sexism and racism as part of your own culture and who you are just because accepting that you're sexist makes you feel icky.
I don't celebrate that I'm sexist, I'm embarassed when it manifests and I work on it. For all genders, not just women.
Grow a pair (Testes or ovaries, your pick) and accept that you're probably at least a little sexist and a little racist, rather than insisting blindly that you're neither.
(This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just frustrating to see the 'Im not a racist' loop once again.)
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1310 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.
Haha as suspected, the first Chinese ship to actually test the blockade and Trump folds. Attacking a properly registered ship of another nation is an act of war. What are they going to do, risk starting WWIII?
I'm just surprised they went ahead with testing this theory so quickly.
The worrying thing now, is the propensity for US policy to make sudden about turns. Maybe the second ship, or the twentieth they actually detain and board. The game of chicken applies the other way too. "So what if I'm blatantly disregarding maritime law? What? are you going to risk starting WWIII over it?" does also work the other way around.
Fortunately, the Chinese have some non maximalist options that they are competent enough to think of and subtle enough to resort to, like rare earth export restrictions again.
|
On April 15 2026 08:53 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 02:10 KT_Elwood wrote:
Being on brand, the "Trump Blockade" is leaky. Chinese ships pass the blockade no problem. Haha as suspected, the first Chinese ship to actually test the blockade and Trump folds. Attacking a properly registered ship of another nation is an act of war. What are they going to do, risk starting WWIII? I'm just surprised they went ahead with testing this theory so quickly. The worrying thing now, is the propensity for US policy to make sudden about turns. Maybe the second ship, or the twentieth they actually detain and board. The game of chicken applies the other way too. "So what if I'm blatantly disregarding maritime law? What? are you going to risk starting WWIII over it?" does also work the other way around. Fortunately, the Chinese have some non maximalist options that they are competent enough to think of and subtle enough to resort to, like rare earth export restrictions again.
A problem may be that the MAGAs are too stupid to actually perceive the more subtle options. If there is no big, showy reaction, they will perceive that as China giving in and double and triple down on being morons.
|
On April 15 2026 07:32 Fleetfeet wrote:
It's trivial to think of examples of myself in my own personal life exhibiting sexism, be it misgendering a female character in a game because male is the default (I did this literally last night many times)
Was she particularly hurt and did you apologize or how did you rectify this? That isn't sexism. Do you think men are better than women and is thinking male characters are better than female characters a manifestation of that?
On April 15 2026 07:32 Fleetfeet wrote:
or consistently getting stuck in defensive masculine loops with male friends, but sure yeah sexism doesn't exist and trump having only won against women is irrelevant yepyep.
What does this mean, getting stuck in defensive masculine loops with male friends?
Like Thermopylae and Stalingrad and the Alamo and Custer's Last Stand?
Or you think you talked too much like a man and that must be sexist? Masculinity is not inherently sexist.
On April 15 2026 07:32 Fleetfeet wrote:
-I- am sexist, you fucking snowflakes. It's part of our culture, and while yes genders are different it makes no sense to wave away sexism and racism as part of your own culture and who you are just because accepting that you're sexist makes you feel icky.
I don't celebrate that I'm sexist, I'm embarassed when it manifests and I work on it. For all genders, not just women.
Grow a pair (Testes or ovaries, your pick) and accept that you're probably at least a little sexist and a little racist, rather than insisting blindly that you're neither.
(This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just frustrating to see the 'Im not a racist' loop once again.)
If you think sexism is stuff like wrongly assuming the gender of a fictional character and are working on that, that is a strategy of wasting finite life. Yes under that definition everyone is sexist or racist. Even Kamala Harris is racist and sexist. But that mindset is wasting finite life. You did not think the character was a man because you men are better than women and women are shit. Or because you want to oppress women. Or because you do and say things to oppress women. You literally just said because the characters are usually male. Creating guilt so you have something to "work on" is not necessary. You can spend the same time working on real things. Like reading a book, playing an instrument, exercising.
On April 15 2026 08:53 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 02:10 KT_Elwood wrote:
Being on brand, the "Trump Blockade" is leaky. Chinese ships pass the blockade no problem. Haha as suspected, the first Chinese ship to actually test the blockade and Trump folds. Attacking a properly registered ship of another nation is an act of war. What are they going to do, risk starting WWIII? I'm just surprised they went ahead with testing this theory so quickly. The worrying thing now, is the propensity for US policy to make sudden about turns. Maybe the second ship, or the twentieth they actually detain and board. The game of chicken applies the other way too. "So what if I'm blatantly disregarding maritime law? What? are you going to risk starting WWIII over it?" does also work the other way around. Fortunately, the Chinese have some non maximalist options that they are competent enough to think of and subtle enough to resort to, like rare earth export restrictions again.
The actual policy is probably not the tweet of "TOTAL BLOCKADE OF EVERYTHING" but a blockade of Iranian ports. It wouldn't make sense to blockade the ships from ports of US friends in the area. Even a Chinese ship from an Iraqi port, aside from the normal ghost fleet tanker issues. Blockading is already an act of war which is why Iran isn't allowed to unilaterally "close" an international waterway.
|
It appears that you're looking to perpetuate the discussion of "How sexist is oBlade" for an additional day, oBlade.
Maybe there will be another Trump-related distraction in the news today, so that we can change the subject. Maybe he'll try to deport all the black and brown bears? Maybe he'll declare war on Kenya because he hates Obama? Maybe he'll appoint Kanye West as his new Reichsführer-SS?
|
On April 15 2026 19:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It appears that you're looking to perpetuate the discussion of "How sexist is oBlade" for an additional day, oBlade.
Maybe there will be another Trump-related distraction in the news today, so that we can change the subject. Maybe he'll try to deport all the black and brown bears? Maybe he'll declare war on Kenya because he hates Obama? Maybe he'll appoint Kanye West as his new Reichsführer-SS?
Just assuring Fleetfeet he isn't sexist either. Changing the subject TO Trump is the last thing you need but how much can I get you to bet that he will declare war on Kenya?
|
There‘s not really consensus on what is defined as racist or sexist. Some really misapply the definition.
I wouldn‘t call someone sexist cause he pronounced my name in its female variant. I‘d just assume he wanted to make a bit of fun at my expense or made an honest mistake.
Imposint a limit on someone‘s potential in a field they aren’t naturally excluded from due to physiology because of a physical feature or other matters not in their power to choose is the common denominator here.
Or slurs when they are aimed.
You can have women who are hyperfeminist and independent and others who‘d rather stay at home and just be moms existing simultaneously. There is no standard there that has to be enforced as long as they can pick what they want.
You could also undergo hormonal therapy because your dream as a man is to be a wet nurse but nobody‘s going to hire you for that. Sexism is also a spectrum that limits the acceptable.
|
On April 15 2026 20:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 19:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It appears that you're looking to perpetuate the discussion of "How sexist is oBlade" for an additional day, oBlade.
Maybe there will be another Trump-related distraction in the news today, so that we can change the subject. Maybe he'll try to deport all the black and brown bears? Maybe he'll declare war on Kenya because he hates Obama? Maybe he'll appoint Kanye West as his new Reichsführer-SS? Just assuring Fleetfeet he isn't sexist either. Changing the subject TO Trump is the last thing you need but how much can I get you to bet that he will declare war on Kenya?
Donald Trump is more relevant to the US Politics thread than your personal level of sexism.
|
How is the excursion/incursion/police action in Iran impacting the every day lives of every day Americans? Welp,
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/inflation-2026-gas-prices-drove-march-numbers-up-levels-not-seen-years.amp
The 21% increase in gas prices in March 2026 is the biggest jump in 1 month since 1967.
Gasoline costs went up more than 21% since February
many countries are getting hit a lot harder than this.
On April 15 2026 21:18 Vivax wrote:
There‘s not really consensus on what is defined as racist or sexist. Some really misapply the definition.
Everyone has own group bias. meh. some conflate that into racism. Sometimes, it is racism or sexism. Sometimes, it is own group bias. It is hard to tell what someone is thinking.
Own group bias has survival value.
|
On April 15 2026 07:18 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:
I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense. I would too, if not for stopping his campaign for governor 2 days after news of the first four accusers broke, and announcing his plan to resign from his seat in congress one day after that. I didn't know what to make of the rumors before that.
I commend your position upgrade from "no rape has ever occurred, ever" into "I'm cautiously willing to believe rape is possible if the culprit is a Democrat."
|
On April 15 2026 23:41 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 07:18 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:
I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense. I would too, if not for stopping his campaign for governor 2 days after news of the first four accusers broke, and announcing his plan to resign from his seat in congress one day after that. I didn't know what to make of the rumors before that. I commend your position upgrade from "no rape has ever occurred, ever" into "I'm cautiously willing to believe rape is possible if the culprit is a Democrat." Apparently in your world, stopping his campaign and resigning his seat isn't even a data point. Not one you mention at least.
You can update me on whether you learned the difference between guilty and liable. It appears that in your confusion, you're just lashing out again. Or you would be quoting me saying what you claim, instead of asserting falsehoods. Bad habit.
|
A trial by jury in a court of law finding Trump to have raped someone required more evidence, objectively, than Swalwell resigning from Congress and a gubernatorial election because of accusations made outside of a court of law. And you know what? He was right to resign. I hope he's indicted, convicted, and imprisoned. Trump is still an adjudicated rapist and he's still blocking release of millions of Epstein files he swore he'd release.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote: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. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding.
Rhetoric of course, rather famously known for not changing opinions, or altering positions. Not studied in various forms for that reason for millennia…
No you didn’t defend his rhetoric, just kinda danced around it and equivocated a bit.
I don’t believe you think we live in a magical world where policy preferences aren’t somewhat shaped by public rhetoric and the media sphere, and somewhat spring from the ether.
But you do seem to argue that way, that Trump’s rhetoric can be decoupled from policy entirely, and there’s not a symbiotic link there. I mean not just Trump obviously, that’s just how politics in large nation-states works in general.
If you’re arguing that the more bullshit end of the scale maybe doesn’t move the needle that much on this particular topic and many Americans already have strong convictions on desirable policy here, I mean yeah I’d agree there.
On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote: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. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style.
It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with.
How are they discerning that? It’s a complex auld world out there as it is, the more bullshit out there the harder it becomes. Hence I think it’s important that say, the President of the US just completely bullshitting is nae summat that should be tolerated or handwaved away.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 15 2026 23:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:How is the excursion/incursion/police action in Iran impacting the every day lives of every day Americans? Welp, https://www.livenowfox.com/news/inflation-2026-gas-prices-drove-march-numbers-up-levels-not-seen-years.ampThe 21% increase in gas prices in March 2026 is the biggest jump in 1 month since 1967. many countries are getting hit a lot harder than this. Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 21:18 Vivax wrote:
There‘s not really consensus on what is defined as racist or sexist. Some really misapply the definition.
Everyone has own group bias. meh. some conflate that into racism. Sometimes, it is racism or sexism. Sometimes, it is own group bias. It is hard to tell what someone is thinking. Own group bias has survival value.
Dunno how it’s going worldwide, we’ve just had our first fuel protests over here, it’s already starting to bite hard in certain industries and professions.
At least this first wave seemed to be mostly farmers and people like taxi drivers, i.e. the first links in the chain hit by fuel rises.
I know myself and my partner are planning around travel expenses in a way we didn’t have to prior to this. New mortgage and some excess private healthcare still left enough in the kitty to not really consider that before. Petrol being what it is
It hasn’t lasted long enough to really be being noticeably passed on down the line in terms of inflationary prices across the board, i imagine if this stretches along and that starts happening people will start getting really pissed.
A frustrating aspect of this, that I’m already seeing is a bunch of that anger is already being directed at our national and local government for not stepping in and fixing it.
The longer this goes on, the more that anger grows, oh and cool look we’ve the right populist Reform party who were already trending even before this waiting in the wings.
Thanks Donald, thanks a fucking bunch lad.
I’m not an economist, nor especially economically literate as some here are. It strikes me that various petroleum products fuel well, basically the entire economy. It doesn’t strike me as something you can effectively subsidise or cap prices on for any length of time without incurring a gigantic hole in your budget right?
I mean you can do a lot in extremis, as we’ve seen with war economies or post-2008, or during Covid. Is this an extreme enough scenario though?
At least in the UK, and I’m plenty critical of our current government in how and where, but they’ve been pretty open in a key goal of theirs being balancing budgets and trying to plug historical holes.
|
On April 16 2026 00:19 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 23:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 07:18 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:
I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense. I would too, if not for stopping his campaign for governor 2 days after news of the first four accusers broke, and announcing his plan to resign from his seat in congress one day after that. I didn't know what to make of the rumors before that. I commend your position upgrade from "no rape has ever occurred, ever" into "I'm cautiously willing to believe rape is possible if the culprit is a Democrat." Apparently in your world, stopping his campaign and resigning his seat isn't even a data point. Not one you mention at least. You can update me on whether you learned the difference between guilty and liable. It appears that in your confusion, you're just lashing out again. Or you would be quoting me saying what you claim, instead of asserting falsehoods. Bad habit. Sorry, LightSpectra, the last time we talked about the prior topic, you kept stating wrong things about the case and doubling down. So I'm linking the last time I gave you opportunity to correct them. I'm not proceeding with someone that takes soundbites and shows either ignorance or purposeful lying. Pay attention to why "Trump was not found guilty" is incorrect, and the question I tried three times to get a clear answer from you on. I guess four times now, but this is important to you given how much you bring it up.
|
On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote: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. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. I directed that at Introvert, to aid him in understanding the substantial point of agreement. You differ on style.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 15 2026 21:18 Vivax wrote:
There‘s not really consensus on what is defined as racist or sexist. Some really misapply the definition.
I wouldn‘t call someone sexist cause he pronounced my name in its female variant. I‘d just assume he wanted to make a bit of fun at my expense or made an honest mistake.
Imposint a limit on someone‘s potential in a field they aren’t naturally excluded from due to physiology because of a physical feature or other matters not in their power to choose is the common denominator here.
Or slurs when they are aimed.
You can have women who are hyperfeminist and independent and others who‘d rather stay at home and just be moms existing simultaneously. There is no standard there that has to be enforced as long as they can pick what they want.
You could also undergo hormonal therapy because your dream as a man is to be a wet nurse but nobody‘s going to hire you for that. Sexism is also a spectrum that limits the acceptable.
You make a good point there.
I think many conceive of it as being actually hateful or discriminatory, so if you invoke it in another context, they’ll get (I guess rightfully) defensive given how they conceive of the term.
For me it’s simply a case of, do you treat, or indeed conceive of people differently based on a characteristic that isn’t relevant to whatever area we’re talking, or do you impose your own generalised views onto other people (be it internally, or by action).
The dude who worships his wife and values her thoughts and opinions, but she’s a stay at home mum because she wants that and it pragmatically works, probably not a sexist. The dude who is actively looking for a pliant Asian waifu (and probably failing precisely because they’re sidestepping the whole ‘women are autonomous beings too’ part) because they have preconceptions about both Asians and women is probably both a bit sexist and racist to boot.
|
On April 16 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 00:19 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 23:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 07:18 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:
I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense. I would too, if not for stopping his campaign for governor 2 days after news of the first four accusers broke, and announcing his plan to resign from his seat in congress one day after that. I didn't know what to make of the rumors before that. I commend your position upgrade from "no rape has ever occurred, ever" into "I'm cautiously willing to believe rape is possible if the culprit is a Democrat." Apparently in your world, stopping his campaign and resigning his seat isn't even a data point. Not one you mention at least. You can update me on whether you learned the difference between guilty and liable. It appears that in your confusion, you're just lashing out again. Or you would be quoting me saying what you claim, instead of asserting falsehoods. Bad habit. Sorry, LightSpectra, the last time we talked about the prior topic, you kept stating wrong things about the case and doubling down. So I'm linking the last time I gave you opportunity to correct them. I'm not proceeding with someone that takes soundbites and shows either ignorance or purposeful lying. Pay attention to why "Trump was not found guilty" is incorrect, and the question I tried three times to get a clear answer from you on. I guess four times now, but this is important to you given how much you bring it up.
Sorry dyhb, but I'm happy to share this once again for your betterment: Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
You can sealion all you like about this topic. I welcome it. It gives me more opportunities to share that link so passersby can learn the facts.
|
On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote: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. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. Rhetoric of course, rather famously known for not changing opinions, or altering positions. Not studied in various forms for that reason for millennia… No you didn’t defend his rhetoric, just kinda danced around it and equivocated a bit. I don’t believe you think we live in a magical world where policy preferences aren’t somewhat shaped by public rhetoric and the media sphere, and somewhat spring from the ether. But you do seem to argue that way, that Trump’s rhetoric can be decoupled from policy entirely, and there’s not a symbiotic link there. I mean not just Trump obviously, that’s just how politics in large nation-states works in general. If you’re arguing that the more bullshit end of the scale maybe doesn’t move the needle that much on this particular topic and many Americans already have strong convictions on desirable policy here, I mean yeah I’d agree there. Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote: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. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. How are they discerning that? It’s a complex auld world out there as it is, the more bullshit out there the harder it becomes. Hence I think it’s important that say, the President of the US just completely bullshitting is nae summat that should be tolerated or handwaved away.
I danced around nothing. But because my post didn't contain the required ritual denunciation you think I did. You understood my point but decided for whatever reason to, quite frankly, ramble and rant first, something apprently becoming a habit around here.
My point was very straightforward and I'm glad you agree. When given a choice between someone who makes stuff up but has a credible claim to the willingness and ability to solve the problem, and someone who uses nice rhetoric but still lies ("border is secure") and shows no desire to fix it, people will often but not always vote for the result they want not the feels they want.
You can argue that Trumpy rhetoric is about feels, and that's true. But the reason I said this is a good example is because the magnitude of the problem itself made it impossible to dismiss as stirred up fear mongering.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On April 16 2026 01:01 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote: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. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. I directed that at Introvert, to aid him in understanding the substantial point of agreement. You differ on style.
Thanks for the clarification.
In terms of historic thread dynamics my position, as has been expressed many times is simply that you can be a conservative, have generally conservative points and not defend Trump, or equivocate and and dance around things. Or, if you do support a Trump action i mean have at it too.
It’s not an especially complex concept.
Intro is perfectly capable of grasping it, but actively chooses not to do so despite claiming not to be a fan of Trump, and then acts surprised when people react badly in whatever way.
‘Trump shouldn’t be out there erroneously claiming Haitians are grabbing pussies and eating them, nonetheless many Americans feel strongly about illegal immigration and disapprove of Dem policy in this domain and voted accordingly’
Like wow, truly difficult stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
