|
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 |
On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'?
You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out.
|
On April 28 2026 14:32 Manit0u wrote:
Isn't this one Trump's 2nd term already? He's probably not eligible for another one (besides, he might die of old age before that).
Personally I'm all for introducing a rule that you can't enter the race for the office if you can't serve full term without hitting the standard retirement age.
I'm cool with this. Same for Congress imo.
|
On April 28 2026 16:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 14:32 Manit0u wrote:
Isn't this one Trump's 2nd term already? He's probably not eligible for another one (besides, he might die of old age before that).
Personally I'm all for introducing a rule that you can't enter the race for the office if you can't serve full term without hitting the standard retirement age. I'm cool with this. Same for Congress imo.
Same for SC. Honestly, 70-80 year olds should really not be in charge, you're way past your prime at that point.
|
On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out.
Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case:
What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?
Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that.
I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point.
|
Do you really not see how obtuse your approach is?
You "demonstrated" by asking another question, which you also didn't answer, then went on to some unrelated thing.
Note how at no point you have laid out your logic in a clear way, nor have you explored the consequences your logic would have on the thing you are discussing.
You are not communicating clearly neither now, nor in the past.
|
This entire thing is a hypothetical anyway. We're just trying to figure out of we can go from a hypothesis to a synthesis, somehow. Yet GH refuses to move along because the response is not satisfactory according to his framework. Weird.
DPBs question is rather simple.
Agreeing with the hypothetical that the line has been crossed that Trump has not been jailed but rsther given a second term to rule, in other words, being illigitemate, what would your next steps be, GH, to make sure this illigitimacy can be enforced. Either through direct action, a legislative framework, or whatever you can think of.
Please engage with the hypothetical you yourself have brought forward to move it forward instead of circling the same drain over and over. Ball is in your court. You can simply say: idk, what would you do? That's completely fine.
Edit: maybe I'm just a retard with bad reading comprehension and this level of rhetoric is whooshing me to another dimension.
|
On April 28 2026 19:06 Uldridge wrote:
This entire thing is a hypothetical anyway. We're just trying to figure out of we can go from a hypothesis to a synthesis, somehow. Yet GH refuses to move along because the response is not satisfactory according to his framework. Weird.
DPBs question is rather simple.
Agreeing with the hypothetical that the line has been crossed that Trump has not been jailed but rsther given a second term to rule, in other words, being illigitemate, what would your next steps be, GH, to make sure this illigitimacy can be enforced. Either through direct action, a legislative framework, or whatever you can think of.
Please engage with the hypothetical you yourself have brought forward to move it forward instead of circling the same drain over and over. Ball is in your court. You can simply say: idk, what would you do? That's completely fine.
Edit: maybe I'm just a retard with bad reading comprehension and this level of rhetoric is whooshing me to another dimension.
No, it's not you, it's him. He's just being his usual unclear self.
|
On April 28 2026 17:32 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 16:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 14:32 Manit0u wrote:
Isn't this one Trump's 2nd term already? He's probably not eligible for another one (besides, he might die of old age before that).
Personally I'm all for introducing a rule that you can't enter the race for the office if you can't serve full term without hitting the standard retirement age. I'm cool with this. Same for Congress imo. Same for SC. Honestly, 70-80 year olds should really not be in charge, you're way past your prime at that point.
Yeah I agree with that too.
|
On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: Show nested quote +What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point.
What are your answers to those rephrased questions?
|
On April 28 2026 16:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 14:32 Manit0u wrote:
Isn't this one Trump's 2nd term already? He's probably not eligible for another one (besides, he might die of old age before that).
Personally I'm all for introducing a rule that you can't enter the race for the office if you can't serve full term without hitting the standard retirement age. I'm cool with this. Same for Congress imo.
It sounds good but I'm seeing a sort of perverse incentive if the people deciding retirement age are the ones benefitting the most from it being as high as possible.
|
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is age limits would require a constitutional amendment, which is heavily unlikely to happen so long as the elderly are the most reliable voting bloc and they have comraderie with their fellow geriatrics.
|
On April 28 2026 19:46 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 16:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 14:32 Manit0u wrote:
Isn't this one Trump's 2nd term already? He's probably not eligible for another one (besides, he might die of old age before that).
Personally I'm all for introducing a rule that you can't enter the race for the office if you can't serve full term without hitting the standard retirement age. I'm cool with this. Same for Congress imo. It sounds good but I'm seeing a sort of perverse incentive if the people deciding retirement age are the ones benefitting the most from it being as high as possible.
You're totally right that putting an age maximum on the three branches of government would be really tough to implement in practice (especially since it might require an Amendment, which means we'd need bipartisan support... "Supreme Court Justices serve lifetime appointments on the Court, in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution" https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme-court ).
I wonder if placing an age maximum on any position mentioned so far would be seen as slightly more acceptable if all current members were grandfathered in as the last set of individuals allowed to hold the position for as long as they wanted. For example, current Senators might be more okay with saying "all future Senators who haven't held the position before 2026" have an age maximum as long as it doesn't apply to those current Senators who are voting for that change. The amenders would be exempt. In other words, it could take decades to clean out the current members and truly see a significantly different age demographic / average.
|
You could somehow correlate working age with voting age: Would be an interesting experiment what would happen if retired people/ people over thr age of (insert number) aren't allowed to vote anymore just like underage people aren't allowed to vote.
|
On April 28 2026 20:30 Harris1st wrote:
You could somehow correlate working age with voting age: Would be an interesting experiment what would happen if retired people/ people over thr age of (insert number) aren't allowed to vote anymore just like underage people aren't allowed to vote.
Unfortunately, Republicans would never, ever, ever go for that, even if it were for the overall benefit of the country.
|
They can vote because they have money and autonomy over that money - up to a certain point at least.
|
People also could... like just not vote for geriatrics?
Personally I like term limits, age limits seem very arbitrary.
|
Ironically elder abuse would probably decrease if octogenarians were disenfranchised because they keep voting for people who defund and deregulate the elderly care industry. Despite that I would never support taking any adult's vote away just because of the precedent.
|
On April 28 2026 19:06 Uldridge wrote:
This entire thing is a hypothetical anyway. We're just trying to figure out of we can go from a hypothesis to a synthesis, somehow. Yet GH refuses to move along because the response is not satisfactory according to his framework. Weird.
DPBs question is rather simple.
Agreeing with the hypothetical that the line has been crossed that Trump has not been jailed but rsther given a second term to rule, in other words, being illigitemate, what would your next steps be, GH, to make sure this illigitimacy can be enforced. Either through direct action, a legislative framework, or whatever you can think of.
Please engage with the hypothetical you yourself have brought forward to move it forward instead of circling the same drain over and over. Ball is in your court. You can simply say: idk, what would you do? That's completely fine.
Edit: maybe I'm just a retard with bad reading comprehension and this level of rhetoric is whooshing me to another dimension.
You've got it. You're not misreading anything.
|
Bisutopia19379 Posts
On April 28 2026 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 20:30 Harris1st wrote:
You could somehow correlate working age with voting age: Would be an interesting experiment what would happen if retired people/ people over thr age of (insert number) aren't allowed to vote anymore just like underage people aren't allowed to vote. Unfortunately, Republicans would never, ever, ever go for that, even if it were for the overall benefit of the country.
Every republican I know supports age and term limits. I think it's very popular among anyone who isn't a politician.
|
On April 28 2026 22:08 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 20:30 Harris1st wrote:
You could somehow correlate working age with voting age: Would be an interesting experiment what would happen if retired people/ people over thr age of (insert number) aren't allowed to vote anymore just like underage people aren't allowed to vote. Unfortunately, Republicans would never, ever, ever go for that, even if it were for the overall benefit of the country. Every republican I know supports age and term limits. I think it's very popular among anyone who isn't a politician.
In that case, I'm very happy to be wrong 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
