|
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 |
I think i have made it very clear that i do not talk to you.
|
On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:58 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 10:47 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:03 LightSpectra wrote:To be clear I agree that Trumps rhetoric is dangerous and it certainly flirts with fascistic ideas yet a retarded leftist screaming fascist at everything is ironically the biggest ally a true fascist can have. Chef's kiss On April 24 2026 10:03 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Interesting point.
Like, you know, someone can be an idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented, and at the same time evil dictator destroying democracy, and sneakily implementing project 2025 Those aren't contradictory things. An idiot with a baseball bat can smash a lot of windows. I am yet to meet demented idiot sneakily implementing something... President of US seem to meet all powerful criteria, while " idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented" is not exactly a powerhouse... On April 24 2026 10:06 WombaT wrote:
Most of the thread actually agree with photo ID in some form, I know I do anyway. Literally everyone who’s responded has couched worries in terms of practicalities in the US context
Wombat reason people disagreed was that Republicans are going to abuse it... Like... how? literally any way to abuse it would be illegal. On the other side your example with moat and lasers (FU, all I think about now, is how to get permission for moat and where to get lasers) is rather exaggerated. I would say it is more like living in low crime area, and yet despite that you still lock the door when going on family holidays. That analogy was meant to illustrate an overreaction to a non-existent problem. Not one of my best, I wouldn’t read too much into it. Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal. Others in the thread have outlined how this can be a factor, much better that I could so I’d recommend scrolling back a few pages. As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period. "Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal." There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused? The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history.
Are you about to demonstrate you don't know the difference between 1800s democrats and 2026 democrats?
|
On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:58 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 10:47 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:03 LightSpectra wrote:To be clear I agree that Trumps rhetoric is dangerous and it certainly flirts with fascistic ideas yet a retarded leftist screaming fascist at everything is ironically the biggest ally a true fascist can have. Chef's kiss On April 24 2026 10:03 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Interesting point.
Like, you know, someone can be an idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented, and at the same time evil dictator destroying democracy, and sneakily implementing project 2025 Those aren't contradictory things. An idiot with a baseball bat can smash a lot of windows. I am yet to meet demented idiot sneakily implementing something... President of US seem to meet all powerful criteria, while " idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented" is not exactly a powerhouse... On April 24 2026 10:06 WombaT wrote:
Most of the thread actually agree with photo ID in some form, I know I do anyway. Literally everyone who’s responded has couched worries in terms of practicalities in the US context
Wombat reason people disagreed was that Republicans are going to abuse it... Like... how? literally any way to abuse it would be illegal. On the other side your example with moat and lasers (FU, all I think about now, is how to get permission for moat and where to get lasers) is rather exaggerated. I would say it is more like living in low crime area, and yet despite that you still lock the door when going on family holidays. That analogy was meant to illustrate an overreaction to a non-existent problem. Not one of my best, I wouldn’t read too much into it. Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal. Others in the thread have outlined how this can be a factor, much better that I could so I’d recommend scrolling back a few pages. As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period. "Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal." There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused? The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history.
The conservatives.
You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did.
|
On April 24 2026 10:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 10:03 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 07:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:
11: Everybody is educated to become a hero, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. I honestly don't really know what this means and I can't really relate it to something Trump has been doing.
This one is rather simple, you cultivate heroes who died for the cause eg: Joann of Arc, Leonidas, Roland, Pheidippides, while the ones who survive eg: Musashi, Lu Bu, El Cid, Saladin are sort of second class heroes. Latter may be recognized for achievements/greatness, but wouldnt be deemed heroic. This kind of grading should lead to many people deeming death for the cause acceptable, or even desired. Interestingly, this is just as humans mind operate actually, you are bound to attach deeper meaning to positive character death, over positive character survival. Which can be easily exploited by skilled propagandist. I also kind of disagree with Eco on this one (may be inaccurate translation), while educated to become a hero is spot on (thats what propaganda is for), then embrace cult of death I would say is rather limited to religious movements, rather than political (with sporadic exceptions, as inn depending on a person rather than cause ). There is ultimate difference between dying and going to some sort of paradise, and... just dying. Now if he said (this is where innacurate translation bit comes)"accepting death for the cause" I would say he is spot on. On April 24 2026 07:25 LightSpectra wrote:
"The enemy/scapegoat is simultaneously all powerful but idiotic and weak" is both the cornerstone of fascist rhetoric, and the defining difference between it and other kinds of right-wing authoritarianism.
Interesting point. Like, you know, someone can be an idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented, and at the same time evil dictator destroying democracy, and sneakily implementing project 2025 I assume what Eco means here is an idea of the exceptional hero driving things, which is a more individualistic conception, rather than collective. I might be misunderstanding here, but even if I’m not I think it’s the least convincing of his checklist I see what you’re getting at, I don’t think it fully counts here. Trump is still powerful, even if you think he’s an idiot. Opponents may despise him, but they don’t frame him as weak. Historically groups like Jews or Bolsheviks have fit that framing. And it wasn’t all bullshit (well, it was, but it was earnestly believed). The Nazis didn’t wage war in a purely pragmatic way, their racial beliefs came into play, to their detriment.
No, this point is not about people driving things or any sort of individualistic pursuit. It's about being raised to sacrifice yourself for the country/nation. Think Hitler's child soldiers, suicide bombers in Islam, or Putin's "it's better for your husbands to die for the country than drink themselves to death".
|
On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points.
Do you have a source for the bolded?
|
On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:58 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 10:47 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:03 LightSpectra wrote:To be clear I agree that Trumps rhetoric is dangerous and it certainly flirts with fascistic ideas yet a retarded leftist screaming fascist at everything is ironically the biggest ally a true fascist can have. Chef's kiss On April 24 2026 10:03 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Interesting point.
Like, you know, someone can be an idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented, and at the same time evil dictator destroying democracy, and sneakily implementing project 2025 Those aren't contradictory things. An idiot with a baseball bat can smash a lot of windows. I am yet to meet demented idiot sneakily implementing something... President of US seem to meet all powerful criteria, while " idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented" is not exactly a powerhouse... On April 24 2026 10:06 WombaT wrote:
Most of the thread actually agree with photo ID in some form, I know I do anyway. Literally everyone who’s responded has couched worries in terms of practicalities in the US context
Wombat reason people disagreed was that Republicans are going to abuse it... Like... how? literally any way to abuse it would be illegal. On the other side your example with moat and lasers (FU, all I think about now, is how to get permission for moat and where to get lasers) is rather exaggerated. I would say it is more like living in low crime area, and yet despite that you still lock the door when going on family holidays. That analogy was meant to illustrate an overreaction to a non-existent problem. Not one of my best, I wouldn’t read too much into it. Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal. Others in the thread have outlined how this can be a factor, much better that I could so I’d recommend scrolling back a few pages. As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period. "Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal." There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused? The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history.
The conservatives.
This exact self-own was recently predicted in this conversation with maybenexttime: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5676#113502
|
On April 24 2026 12:00 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 09:53 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems. I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Right so what’s stopping the Republicans doing that? It’s their baby, their cause and they can’t seemingly propose any acceptable compromise so… why is that? You seem to be a rare poster who hasn’t evolved in the last 15 years and thinks it’s all good to call people retarded every second post. Let it be on record that I think you’re a fucking idiot whose sense of their own intelligence is grossly out of whack with reality. You seem grossly incapable of assessing arguments and incorporating them into your worldview and subsequently responding to what’s presented. You love a wee strawman don’t ya? I’m not sure if I should be comforted or worried that the likes of yourself are the best that the non-left can seemingly send Yours, Retarded Leftist For fucks sake, how many times do I have to say this, read carefully I'm not repeating myself again: Republicans don't propose an acceptable compromise because they don't want fair secure elections, they want more votes for them, and Democrats oppose it for the same reasonI find it funny that my use of the word retard bothers you, very on brand lol.
Repeating a lie doesn't suddenly make it true. A compromise doesn't make sense when one group is factually correct about this and the other is not.
Democrats are correct in that (1) the United States does not experience widespread voter fraud, (2) the United States already has incredibly secure elections, (3) requiring photo ID to vote without a system in place to guarantee free and immediate photo ID for all voters will disenfranchise many voters and is an unconstitutional poll tax, (4) the majority of those disenfranchised voters tend to vote Democrat which is why Republicans are trying to push this bad-faith "solution" to a non-problem in the first place.
The two parties are not equally correct (or incorrect) on this, either on legal or moral grounds.
Republicans are initially claiming that 2+2=8, and then claiming that since 2+2=8 isn't consistent with the rest of addition, there must be an internal problem with addition.
Democrats are rejecting the Republicans' initial premise, because they know that 2+2=4 and can show precisely why 2+2=4, and so they know that the Republicans aren't demonstrating an internal problem with addition.
Then you come in and say that both parties are being malicious with their 2+2=8 and 2+2=4 rhetoric, and we should really find a number in the middle to agree upon... maybe 2+2=6, or the Democrats should at least be okay with moving their position a little bit, like to 2+2=5, because that just feels more reasonable!
|
Germany7421 Posts
On April 24 2026 17:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 12:00 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 09:53 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems. I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Right so what’s stopping the Republicans doing that? It’s their baby, their cause and they can’t seemingly propose any acceptable compromise so… why is that? You seem to be a rare poster who hasn’t evolved in the last 15 years and thinks it’s all good to call people retarded every second post. Let it be on record that I think you’re a fucking idiot whose sense of their own intelligence is grossly out of whack with reality. You seem grossly incapable of assessing arguments and incorporating them into your worldview and subsequently responding to what’s presented. You love a wee strawman don’t ya? I’m not sure if I should be comforted or worried that the likes of yourself are the best that the non-left can seemingly send Yours, Retarded Leftist For fucks sake, how many times do I have to say this, read carefully I'm not repeating myself again: Republicans don't propose an acceptable compromise because they don't want fair secure elections, they want more votes for them, and Democrats oppose it for the same reasonI find it funny that my use of the word retard bothers you, very on brand lol. Repeating a lie doesn't suddenly make it true. A compromise doesn't make sense when one group is factually correct about this and the other is not. Democrats are correct in that (1) the United States does not experience widespread voter fraud, (2) the United States already has incredibly secure elections, (3) requiring photo ID to vote without a system in place to guarantee free and immediate photo ID for all voters will disenfranchise many voters and is an unconstitutional poll tax, (4) the majority of those disenfranchised voters tend to vote Democrat which is why Republicans are trying to push this bad-faith "solution" to a non-problem in the first place. The two parties are not equally correct (or incorrect) on this, either on legal or moral grounds. Republicans are initially claiming that 2+2=8, and then claiming that since 2+2=8 isn't consistent with the rest of addition, there must be an internal problem with addition. Democrats are rejecting the Republicans' initial premise, because they know that 2+2=4 and can show precisely why 2+2=4, and so they know that the Republicans aren't demonstrating an internal problem with addition. Then you come in and say that both parties are being malicious with their 2+2=8 and 2+2=4 rhetoric, and we should really find a number in the middle to agree upon... maybe 2+2=6, or the Democrats should at least be okay with moving their position a little bit, like to 2+2=5, because that just feels more reasonable!
This is a great example and I am very curious to see how some people in here will either fail to understand it oder chose to ignore it :D
|
Look, I'll repeat it again here. Reps (conservatives) have adpoted a post-modern approach they feared for so long and have shaped their own reality. Partly because of the pervasiveness of post-modernism in contemporary society. It basically slowly wormed itself into their psyche.Their facts don't care about your feelings. And your facts can't trump their facts because they don't care about facts, they care about how their facts make them feel. And they want to feel righteous and powerful and justified. That's their entire modus operandus. Take that away from them and they become a miserable pile of snivveling whiners. Truth be told, they've always been whiners. I'll give them one thing though, they're the best at making a circlejerk or echo chamber. If you need someone to make a cohesive group, let a conservative lead the charge. They'll make a cult, or a religion or a zealous political movement out of it.
|
On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded?
Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao
|
On April 24 2026 17:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 12:00 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 09:53 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems. I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Right so what’s stopping the Republicans doing that? It’s their baby, their cause and they can’t seemingly propose any acceptable compromise so… why is that? You seem to be a rare poster who hasn’t evolved in the last 15 years and thinks it’s all good to call people retarded every second post. Let it be on record that I think you’re a fucking idiot whose sense of their own intelligence is grossly out of whack with reality. You seem grossly incapable of assessing arguments and incorporating them into your worldview and subsequently responding to what’s presented. You love a wee strawman don’t ya? I’m not sure if I should be comforted or worried that the likes of yourself are the best that the non-left can seemingly send Yours, Retarded Leftist For fucks sake, how many times do I have to say this, read carefully I'm not repeating myself again: Republicans don't propose an acceptable compromise because they don't want fair secure elections, they want more votes for them, and Democrats oppose it for the same reasonI find it funny that my use of the word retard bothers you, very on brand lol. Repeating a lie doesn't suddenly make it true. A compromise doesn't make sense when one group is factually correct about this and the other is not. Democrats are correct in that (1) the United States does not experience widespread voter fraud, (2) the United States already has incredibly secure elections, (3) requiring photo ID to vote without a system in place to guarantee free and immediate photo ID for all voters will disenfranchise many voters and is an unconstitutional poll tax, (4) the majority of those disenfranchised voters tend to vote Democrat which is why Republicans are trying to push this bad-faith "solution" to a non-problem in the first place. The two parties are not equally correct (or incorrect) on this, either on legal or moral grounds. Republicans are initially claiming that 2+2=8, and then claiming that since 2+2=8 isn't consistent with the rest of addition, there must be an internal problem with addition. Democrats are rejecting the Republicans' initial premise, because they know that 2+2=4 and can show precisely why 2+2=4, and so they know that the Republicans aren't demonstrating an internal problem with addition. Then you come in and say that both parties are being malicious with their 2+2=8 and 2+2=4 rhetoric, and we should really find a number in the middle to agree upon... maybe 2+2=6, or the Democrats should at least be okay with moving their position a little bit, like to 2+2=5, because that just feels more reasonable!
Of course, Republican politicians are self interested bastards seeking votes, while Democrat politicians are pure souls that only seek fair and secure elections nothing more.
You are almost as good as understanding politics than you are with analogies.
|
Do you know the difference between the mental constitutions of a conservative and a progressive (or here a Rep and Dem), or do you believe they just pick a side based on how succesful they'll be there?
Also, no need to strawman, no one ever said Dems are pure souls. But Dems do respect the legislature and Reps have time and again demonstrated they don't really care about that if it doesn't serve their narratives.
|
On April 24 2026 17:42 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 17:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 24 2026 12:00 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 09:53 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems. I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Right so what’s stopping the Republicans doing that? It’s their baby, their cause and they can’t seemingly propose any acceptable compromise so… why is that? You seem to be a rare poster who hasn’t evolved in the last 15 years and thinks it’s all good to call people retarded every second post. Let it be on record that I think you’re a fucking idiot whose sense of their own intelligence is grossly out of whack with reality. You seem grossly incapable of assessing arguments and incorporating them into your worldview and subsequently responding to what’s presented. You love a wee strawman don’t ya? I’m not sure if I should be comforted or worried that the likes of yourself are the best that the non-left can seemingly send Yours, Retarded Leftist For fucks sake, how many times do I have to say this, read carefully I'm not repeating myself again: Republicans don't propose an acceptable compromise because they don't want fair secure elections, they want more votes for them, and Democrats oppose it for the same reasonI find it funny that my use of the word retard bothers you, very on brand lol. Repeating a lie doesn't suddenly make it true. A compromise doesn't make sense when one group is factually correct about this and the other is not. Democrats are correct in that (1) the United States does not experience widespread voter fraud, (2) the United States already has incredibly secure elections, (3) requiring photo ID to vote without a system in place to guarantee free and immediate photo ID for all voters will disenfranchise many voters and is an unconstitutional poll tax, (4) the majority of those disenfranchised voters tend to vote Democrat which is why Republicans are trying to push this bad-faith "solution" to a non-problem in the first place. The two parties are not equally correct (or incorrect) on this, either on legal or moral grounds. Republicans are initially claiming that 2+2=8, and then claiming that since 2+2=8 isn't consistent with the rest of addition, there must be an internal problem with addition. Democrats are rejecting the Republicans' initial premise, because they know that 2+2=4 and can show precisely why 2+2=4, and so they know that the Republicans aren't demonstrating an internal problem with addition. Then you come in and say that both parties are being malicious with their 2+2=8 and 2+2=4 rhetoric, and we should really find a number in the middle to agree upon... maybe 2+2=6, or the Democrats should at least be okay with moving their position a little bit, like to 2+2=5, because that just feels more reasonable! This is a great example and I am very curious to see how some people in here will either fail to understand it oder chose to ignore it :D
Thank you, and baal's response is Exhibit A for failing to understand it or ignoring it:
On April 24 2026 19:43 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 17:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 24 2026 12:00 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 09:53 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems. I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Right so what’s stopping the Republicans doing that? It’s their baby, their cause and they can’t seemingly propose any acceptable compromise so… why is that? You seem to be a rare poster who hasn’t evolved in the last 15 years and thinks it’s all good to call people retarded every second post. Let it be on record that I think you’re a fucking idiot whose sense of their own intelligence is grossly out of whack with reality. You seem grossly incapable of assessing arguments and incorporating them into your worldview and subsequently responding to what’s presented. You love a wee strawman don’t ya? I’m not sure if I should be comforted or worried that the likes of yourself are the best that the non-left can seemingly send Yours, Retarded Leftist For fucks sake, how many times do I have to say this, read carefully I'm not repeating myself again: Republicans don't propose an acceptable compromise because they don't want fair secure elections, they want more votes for them, and Democrats oppose it for the same reasonI find it funny that my use of the word retard bothers you, very on brand lol. Repeating a lie doesn't suddenly make it true. A compromise doesn't make sense when one group is factually correct about this and the other is not. Democrats are correct in that (1) the United States does not experience widespread voter fraud, (2) the United States already has incredibly secure elections, (3) requiring photo ID to vote without a system in place to guarantee free and immediate photo ID for all voters will disenfranchise many voters and is an unconstitutional poll tax, (4) the majority of those disenfranchised voters tend to vote Democrat which is why Republicans are trying to push this bad-faith "solution" to a non-problem in the first place. The two parties are not equally correct (or incorrect) on this, either on legal or moral grounds. Republicans are initially claiming that 2+2=8, and then claiming that since 2+2=8 isn't consistent with the rest of addition, there must be an internal problem with addition. Democrats are rejecting the Republicans' initial premise, because they know that 2+2=4 and can show precisely why 2+2=4, and so they know that the Republicans aren't demonstrating an internal problem with addition. Then you come in and say that both parties are being malicious with their 2+2=8 and 2+2=4 rhetoric, and we should really find a number in the middle to agree upon... maybe 2+2=6, or the Democrats should at least be okay with moving their position a little bit, like to 2+2=5, because that just feels more reasonable! Of course, Republican politicians are self interested bastards seeking votes, while Democrat politicians are pure souls that only seek fair and secure elections nothing more. You are almost as good as understanding politics than you are with analogies.
There are plenty of issues with Democratic politicians and the Democratic party. Pushing for insecure elections is not one of them. Your retreat from "election integrity" to "oH nOw dEmOcRaT PoLiTiCiAnS aRe pErFeCt!?!?!?!?!?!?" is a clear goalpost-moving concession on your part, and it's probably the closest we'll all get to you apologizing for being the most recent poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
On April 24 2026 19:36 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 15:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 24 2026 09:33 baal wrote:On April 23 2026 20:31 WombaT wrote:
Your argument appears to be that policy should be made to placate folks you appear to consider drones. I think policy should be made to make the most reasonably secure elections possible, a simple photo ID seem absolutely reasonable. This is something that happens in pretty much all of the world, in countries with far less resources yet the US has one of the least secure systems.I've said the electoral college should be abolished too, while the intent is reasonable the application sucks making most votes irrelevant, I say this to make it clear that I'm not parroting Republican talking points like the leftits retards in here do with Dem points. Do you have a source for the bolded? Sure, they ran multiple studies and they found out the US doesnt even require a fucking ID lmao
So... you don't have a source for the bolded? And instead of backing up your claim, you thought it'd be a good idea to provide a non sequitur, since the lack of a photo ID doesn't actually mean "the US has one of the least secure systems"? And we know this is true, because your assertion - "the US has one of the least secure systems" - is actually completely false. You're right that there have been "multiple studies"... but they disprove your statement. The United States's election system and general election integrity are nowhere near the bottom. In fact, they consistently rank in the top half of countries, with scores like 11/12 and 9.17/10 depending on which metrics are being used and who is doing the research. Not perfect, but still very secure:
The U.S. generally ranks highly on the overall freedom and fairness of its elections when compared with other countries ... Freedom House gave the U.S. electoral process 11 out of 12 possible points on its “electoral process” scale – the same rating the nation has had since 2007 (when its score was raised from a 10) ... It covers three major areas: whether the head of government or other chief national authority is chosen through free and fair elections; whether national legislators are chosen through free and fair elections; and whether a country’s electoral laws and framework are fair. Among the things that go into making elections “free and fair”: “Is the vote count transparent, and is it reported honestly with the official results made public?”
Of the 195 sovereign countries Freedom House ranked this year (using 2015 data), 61 scored 12 out of 12 on the group’s electoral process scale – among them Australia, Canada, Japan and the UK. Besides the U.S., 16 other countries received 11 points out of 12. Freedom House didn’t detail where the U.S. fell short, but commented in its report that “… its elections and legislative process have suffered from an increasingly intricate system of gerrymandering and undue interference by wealthy individuals and special interests.”
While well-known and frequently cited by media and academics, the Freedom House rankings aren’t the only cross-national measures of democracy. The Economist Intelligence Unit, an analytics and forecasting business affiliated with the British newsmagazine, has produced its “Democracy Index” every year or two since 2006. This year’s version gives the U.S. 9.17 out of 10 points in the “electoral process and pluralism” category, one of 21 countries to receive that score (some of the others: Cape Verde, Denmark, El Salvador and Japan). Besides whether elections for the head of government, national legislature and municipalities are free and fair, the EIU’s electoral process/pluralism measure also covers voting restrictions, campaign finance and the orderly transfer of power. ... The EIU expressed no concerns about the integrity of U.S. elections. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/31/u-s-electoral-system-ranks-high-but-not-highest-in-global-comparisons/
|
A grown man would've reflected on their positions and feelings instead of lashing out and calling everyone else names.
Thanks for taking the time to read my reply and water it down to serve your narrative. After all, I wasn't supposed to join the discussion, we're merely here to satisfy personal curiosity ignorance.
waiting for the incoming nitpicking of DPBs source completely missing the fact that gerrymandering (which side does that again?) and interference by individuals are the only thing keeping them from a 12/12. Surely these individuals are illegal immigrants
|
On April 24 2026 20:49 misirlou wrote:
A grown man would've reflected on their positions and feelings instead of lashing out and calling everyone else names.
Thanks for taking the time to read my reply and water it down to serve your narrative. After all, I wasn't supposed to join the discussion, we're merely here to satisfy personal curiosity ignorance.
waiting for the incoming nitpicking of DPBs source completely missing the fact that gerrymandering (which side does that again?) and interference by individuals are the only thing keeping them from a 12/12. Surely these individuals are illegal immigrants
Also, another thing to point out: besides poll taxes being unconstitutional, besides there being no widespread voter fraud, and besides there being no indication that photo IDs are necessary for the US's election security, there will forever be a moving goalpost for Republicans to always push for an unfair advantage, and then another, and then another still.
I would absolutely bet that even if the Democrats caved and permitted the mandatory photo IDs that Republicans want, the very next time that a Republican lost a presidential election there would still be bullshit cries of election fraud. And then there would be another made-up "solution" that would conveniently attempt to disenfranchise more disproportionately Democratic voters - maybe we should ban all mail-in voting in urban areas, or maybe we should shut down voting areas that are poorer or have higher crime rates in blue and purple states, or maybe we should only allow voting in English, or maybe we should close voting areas much earlier in the day, and so on - and it would never end. And we know this because of all the different ways Republicans have already tried to cheat the system, from fake electors... to lawsuits... to trying to strongarm state leaders into lying... to insurrections... to spreading fake news... and they still haven't stopped coming up with new strategies to steal wins. They'll never stop.
|
Why aren't Republicans doing anything about the gnome attacks killing millions in the American midwest every year? They could easily prevent it by voting for the Set FOX News HQ On Fire Act but they won't, so now blood is on their hands.
|
On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:37 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 12:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 12:15 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:58 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 10:47 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 10:03 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Chef's kiss
[quote]
Those aren't contradictory things. An idiot with a baseball bat can smash a lot of windows. I am yet to meet demented idiot sneakily implementing something... President of US seem to meet all powerful criteria, while " idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented" is not exactly a powerhouse... On April 24 2026 10:06 WombaT wrote:
Most of the thread actually agree with photo ID in some form, I know I do anyway. Literally everyone who’s responded has couched worries in terms of practicalities in the US context
Wombat reason people disagreed was that Republicans are going to abuse it... Like... how? literally any way to abuse it would be illegal. On the other side your example with moat and lasers (FU, all I think about now, is how to get permission for moat and where to get lasers) is rather exaggerated. I would say it is more like living in low crime area, and yet despite that you still lock the door when going on family holidays. That analogy was meant to illustrate an overreaction to a non-existent problem. Not one of my best, I wouldn’t read too much into it. Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal. Others in the thread have outlined how this can be a factor, much better that I could so I’d recommend scrolling back a few pages. As for non existent problem, you do still lock doors when leaving house for extended period. "Yeah that was the disagreement, because they will abuse it, and have. It’s not illegal." There is literally no legal way to abuse it. Nobody was able to give example, beside usual explanation "they are too stupid to sort their own paperwork". Wombat seriously please look through the thread recent pages andl give me specific example where people pointed out how it will be abused? The fact that you don’t know the history of racial disenfranchisement in the United States doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, it means that you don’t know it. Other people have knowledge that you don’t. Maybe you shouldn’t be so confident in your assertions of what is and isn’t possible given your track record of incomprehensible ignorance. It is quite amazing how you are able to complain about racial disenfranchisement, and yet manage didnt address anything I said. But hey, you accused me of ignorance... you won... I guess... There was nothing to address. People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying. Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did.
There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on.
|
The desire to suppress votes miraculously vanished, like magic. You know, like COVID-19 did in February 2020.
|
On April 24 2026 22:19 LightSpectra wrote:
The desire to suppress votes miraculously vanished, like magic. You know, like COVID-19 did in February 2020.
If you stop collecting data on minorities, then you get to pretend like they have no problems!
|
Northern Ireland27460 Posts
On April 24 2026 14:45 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2026 10:23 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2026 10:03 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 07:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:
11: Everybody is educated to become a hero, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. I honestly don't really know what this means and I can't really relate it to something Trump has been doing.
This one is rather simple, you cultivate heroes who died for the cause eg: Joann of Arc, Leonidas, Roland, Pheidippides, while the ones who survive eg: Musashi, Lu Bu, El Cid, Saladin are sort of second class heroes. Latter may be recognized for achievements/greatness, but wouldnt be deemed heroic. This kind of grading should lead to many people deeming death for the cause acceptable, or even desired. Interestingly, this is just as humans mind operate actually, you are bound to attach deeper meaning to positive character death, over positive character survival. Which can be easily exploited by skilled propagandist. I also kind of disagree with Eco on this one (may be inaccurate translation), while educated to become a hero is spot on (thats what propaganda is for), then embrace cult of death I would say is rather limited to religious movements, rather than political (with sporadic exceptions, as inn depending on a person rather than cause ). There is ultimate difference between dying and going to some sort of paradise, and... just dying. Now if he said (this is where innacurate translation bit comes)"accepting death for the cause" I would say he is spot on. On April 24 2026 07:25 LightSpectra wrote:
"The enemy/scapegoat is simultaneously all powerful but idiotic and weak" is both the cornerstone of fascist rhetoric, and the defining difference between it and other kinds of right-wing authoritarianism.
Interesting point. Like, you know, someone can be an idiot, doing whatever last person he saw told him, while being demented, and at the same time evil dictator destroying democracy, and sneakily implementing project 2025 I assume what Eco means here is an idea of the exceptional hero driving things, which is a more individualistic conception, rather than collective. I might be misunderstanding here, but even if I’m not I think it’s the least convincing of his checklist I see what you’re getting at, I don’t think it fully counts here. Trump is still powerful, even if you think he’s an idiot. Opponents may despise him, but they don’t frame him as weak. Historically groups like Jews or Bolsheviks have fit that framing. And it wasn’t all bullshit (well, it was, but it was earnestly believed). The Nazis didn’t wage war in a purely pragmatic way, their racial beliefs came into play, to their detriment. No, this point is not about people driving things or any sort of individualistic pursuit. It's about being raised to sacrifice yourself for the country/nation. Think Hitler's child soldiers, suicide bombers in Islam, or Putin's "it's better for your husbands to die for the country than drink themselves to death".
Makes sense, cheers for clearing that up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
