|
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 June 02 2026 09:48 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2026 01:25 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2026 01:10 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 00:09 Razyda wrote:On June 01 2026 23:40 Billyboy wrote:
How do MAGAs and other Republicans deal with the constant double talk and straight up fabrications when it comes to Iran.
Trump has said repeatedly that he destroyed Irans military (and heard it parroted here), but now he says “their military, we’ve sort of left it alone, because we think that their military is somewhat, somewhat moderate… we’ve actually left their military alone. People would be surprised to hear that.”
This is on top of the constant changing of goals. I find it very frustrating to hear a deal is done for the 13th time only to have bombs dropping the next day. But MAGA and Republicans must have whip lash from trusting each proclamation, only to have to pivot to a new reality sometimes as soon as minutes later. Arent you surprised, hearing it from orange man himself?  . Seems like he was right again. (Sorry couldn't help myself). Which time was he right? When it was obliterated or now when it has not been touched? Keep in mind, like minded people to you in the US love and trust this guy. If Trump makes multiple contradictory statements, and one of them ends up being even partially true, then it's totally fine to ignore everything else and state "Seems like he was right again" /s + Show Spoiler +
Tautologically, either Iran's military has been affected or it hasn't. Genius move, to declare both simultaneously!
You mock it, but it worked to get reelected. Which iirc is more important than saying the right/true thing. Everyone here not in the cult is painfully aware of this. The mocking is out of frustration of those that believe the liar and the equally bad people who think there is no difference between the options. GH knows all this and is just trolling whenever he goes into his "mock and gawk" mode. GH is obsessed with mocking and gawking at others, while hypocritically criticizing others who do the same. In the past hour or so, he's added two new "mock and gawk" posts. He's just desperate for attention, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to engage with him when he's acting this way. As I understand Turbo: We're all just following the inertia of the current system because none of us want to have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia (despite the overwhelming recognition of the necessity of such actions). Meanwhile everyone enjoys complaining about it and belittling others. I think figuring out how to break out of that dynamic would be a good and fun use of our collectively otherwise rather banal posting. Don't all of you agree? I don't think you understood me if you think you can break out of the dynamic by talking about it among 25 people on a forum. + Show Spoiler +Please don't use me as your latest cudgel with which to try to beat the posters here into having the discussions that it always turns out you didn't actually want to have, whenever your whims are actually entertained.
Or you know, keep doing it, maybe we can have another great round of you making excuses about why you can't give any opinions or contributions of your own because "not everybody's done brainstorming yet".
I don't think my name is going to do much for you on that front though. The diamond rings one was pretty weak, and "a guy who hardly posts here said this!" is worse.
Well I thought some people might reject the notion that they are helplessly trapped in the dynamic you're describing and/or have a desire to spend some time and effort discussing what getting out of it looks like (among each other, not necessarily with me) instead of the banal bullshit we're all used to.
I suppose I was wrong about that.
|
On June 02 2026 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
(among each other, not with me)
Precisely. You repeatedly try to monopolise people's attention on here and control the conversation, but then refuse to actually participate in it. I'm not sure I get the point. You told me I was a petulant troll when I compared you to a cat mewling for attention and then slinking off upon receiving it, but this is basically you admitting to exactly that.
Apparently we should all talk about precisely what you would like us to talk about, but also you won't be a part of it.
Why not try to break out of your own inertial trapping of "they don't listen to me anyway" -> "so when I post I won't contribute my own thoughts" -> "they don't listen to me anyway" -> "so when I post I won't contribute content my own thoughts"?
|
On June 02 2026 12:07 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 09:48 Turbovolver wrote:On June 02 2026 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2026 01:25 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2026 01:10 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 00:09 Razyda wrote:[quote] Arent you surprised, hearing it from orange man himself? . Seems like he was right again. (Sorry couldn't help myself). Which time was he right? When it was obliterated or now when it has not been touched? Keep in mind, like minded people to you in the US love and trust this guy. If Trump makes multiple contradictory statements, and one of them ends up being even partially true, then it's totally fine to ignore everything else and state "Seems like he was right again" /s + Show Spoiler +
Tautologically, either Iran's military has been affected or it hasn't. Genius move, to declare both simultaneously!
You mock it, but it worked to get reelected. Which iirc is more important than saying the right/true thing. Everyone here not in the cult is painfully aware of this. The mocking is out of frustration of those that believe the liar and the equally bad people who think there is no difference between the options. GH knows all this and is just trolling whenever he goes into his "mock and gawk" mode. GH is obsessed with mocking and gawking at others, while hypocritically criticizing others who do the same. In the past hour or so, he's added two new "mock and gawk" posts. He's just desperate for attention, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to engage with him when he's acting this way. As I understand Turbo: We're all just following the inertia of the current system because none of us want to have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia (despite the overwhelming recognition of the necessity of such actions). Meanwhile everyone enjoys complaining about it and belittling others. I think figuring out how to break out of that dynamic would be a good and fun use of our collectively otherwise rather banal posting. Don't all of you agree? I don't think you understood me if you think you can break out of the dynamic by talking about it among 25 people on a forum. + Show Spoiler +Please don't use me as your latest cudgel with which to try to beat the posters here into having the discussions that it always turns out you didn't actually want to have, whenever your whims are actually entertained.
Or you know, keep doing it, maybe we can have another great round of you making excuses about why you can't give any opinions or contributions of your own because "not everybody's done brainstorming yet".
I don't think my name is going to do much for you on that front though. The diamond rings one was pretty weak, and "a guy who hardly posts here said this!" is worse. + Show Spoiler +Well I thought some people might reject the notion that they are helplessly trapped in the dynamic you're describing and/or have a desire to spend some time and effort discussing what getting out of it looks like (among each other, not necessarily with me) + Show Spoiler +instead of the banal bullshit we're all used to.
I suppose I was wrong about that. + Show Spoiler +Precisely. You repeatedly try to monopolise people's attention on here and control the conversation, but then refuse to actually participate in it. I'm not sure I get the point. You told me I was a petulant troll when I compared you to a cat mewling for attention and then slinking off upon receiving it, but this is basically you admitting to exactly that.
Apparently we should all talk about precisely what you would like us to talk about, but also you won't be a part of it. + Show Spoiler +Why not try to break out of your own inertial trapping of "they don't listen to me anyway" -> "so when I post I won't contribute my own thoughts" -> "they don't listen to me anyway" -> "so when I post I won't contribute content my own thoughts"? Except I will? Everyone insists they don't discuss these things (or pretty much anything besides the typical mock and gawk) because of issues with me instead of what I think you rightly pointed out, which is the inertia of the status quo and our personal interactions with it. Hence the disclaimer. I was a moment too late in adding my "necessarily" in there to preempt you from doing this though.
People can talk about whatever they want, and if I wanted attention, there's plenty of posters I could bicker endlessly with.
+ Show Spoiler +I just enjoy when the discussion here is interesting and don't find the endless "dunking" on oBlade and such very interesting. I understand people derive a great deal of their posting pleasure from stuff like that, and I can too sometimes, but I at least occasionally like to read and partake in some more substantive/stimulating discussion.
At this point, I'd think California's primary and Governor race being a topic for a while would be popular, with or without me. I'd do whichever made it more likely to manage to go for a couple pages or at least a fraction of the typical shitposting with Sartres.
Just about anything other than the obvious "Trump/Republicans/Sartres bad!" that we all know and agree on would be a nice change of pace is all.
|
That wasn't me scoring some neat gotcha on you because you missed a word, though. It literally happened.
As you spoilered out of my previous post when you quoted it, the last time your preferred topic was seriously entertained, you explicitly said you were going to wait until brainstorming was done before you said anything.
Then several (weeks? months?) passed, and you never said anything.
It's all on us to google and guess at just what "non-reformist reforms" means in practice, for example. And while no, you have no obligation to play educator, nobody else has obligation to go read theory, especially if it's revolutionary theory and you agree with me that most of them intend to aim to be as cozy as possible in the current system rather than upturn it. Because they are people, and that's just how people are. I heard somewhere that the "boiled frogs" concept is actually false, and frogs will escape a warming pot. Not sure if that's true, but I definitely think people are the frogs that get boiled. Our great ability to adapt also necessarily means that we feel things mostly in terms of the difference from our current state.
So no, people aren't choosing their politics to spite you personally.
But when people respond to your impolite requests/efforts to change entirely what they are talking about, frequently with a lot of deliberately inflammatory language, yeah that may have a big personal component.
|
Every time I start typing a response to GH I stop and think "what am I expecting to get out of this?". So I normally just stop because I never get anything out of it.
|
On June 02 2026 13:25 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 12:07 Turbovolver wrote:On June 02 2026 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 09:48 Turbovolver wrote:On June 02 2026 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2026 01:25 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] If Trump makes multiple contradictory statements, and one of them ends up being even partially true, then it's totally fine to ignore everything else and state "Seems like he was right again" /s + Show Spoiler +
Tautologically, either Iran's military has been affected or it hasn't. Genius move, to declare both simultaneously!
You mock it, but it worked to get reelected. Which iirc is more important than saying the right/true thing. Everyone here not in the cult is painfully aware of this. The mocking is out of frustration of those that believe the liar and the equally bad people who think there is no difference between the options. GH knows all this and is just trolling whenever he goes into his "mock and gawk" mode. GH is obsessed with mocking and gawking at others, while hypocritically criticizing others who do the same. In the past hour or so, he's added two new "mock and gawk" posts. He's just desperate for attention, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to engage with him when he's acting this way. As I understand Turbo: We're all just following the inertia of the current system because none of us want to have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia (despite the overwhelming recognition of the necessity of such actions). Meanwhile everyone enjoys complaining about it and belittling others. I think figuring out how to break out of that dynamic would be a good and fun use of our collectively otherwise rather banal posting. Don't all of you agree? I don't think you understood me if you think you can break out of the dynamic by talking about it among 25 people on a forum. + Show Spoiler +Please don't use me as your latest cudgel with which to try to beat the posters here into having the discussions that it always turns out you didn't actually want to have, whenever your whims are actually entertained.
Or you know, keep doing it, maybe we can have another great round of you making excuses about why you can't give any opinions or contributions of your own because "not everybody's done brainstorming yet".
I don't think my name is going to do much for you on that front though. The diamond rings one was pretty weak, and "a guy who hardly posts here said this!" is worse. + Show Spoiler +Well I thought some people might reject the notion that they are helplessly trapped in the dynamic you're describing and/or have a desire to spend some time and effort discussing what getting out of it looks like (among each other, not necessarily with me) + Show Spoiler +instead of the banal bullshit we're all used to.
I suppose I was wrong about that. + Show Spoiler +Precisely. You repeatedly try to monopolise people's attention on here and control the conversation, but then refuse to actually participate in it. I'm not sure I get the point. You told me I was a petulant troll when I compared you to a cat mewling for attention and then slinking off upon receiving it, but this is basically you admitting to exactly that.
Apparently we should all talk about precisely what you would like us to talk about, but also you won't be a part of it. + Show Spoiler +Why not try to break out of your own inertial trapping of "they don't listen to me anyway" -> "so when I post I won't contribute my own thoughts" -> "they don't listen to me anyway" -> "so when I post I won't contribute content my own thoughts"? Except I will? Everyone insists they don't discuss these things (or pretty much anything besides the typical mock and gawk) because of issues with me instead of what I think you rightly pointed out, which is the inertia of the status quo and our personal interactions with it. Hence the disclaimer. I was a moment too late in adding my "necessarily" in there to preempt you from doing this though. People can talk about whatever they want, and if I wanted attention, there's plenty of posters I could bicker endlessly with. + Show Spoiler +I just enjoy when the discussion here is interesting and don't find the endless "dunking" on oBlade and such very interesting. I understand people derive a great deal of their posting pleasure from stuff like that, and I can too sometimes, but I at least occasionally like to read and partake in some more substantive/stimulating discussion.
At this point, I'd think California's primary and Governor race being a topic for a while would be popular, with or without me. I'd do whichever made it more likely to manage to go for a couple pages or at least a fraction of the typical shitposting with Sartres.
Just about anything other than the obvious "Trump/Republicans/Sartres bad!" that we all know and agree on would be a nice change of pace is all. That wasn't me scoring some neat gotcha on you because you missed a word, though. It literally happened. As you spoilered out of my previous post when you quoted it, the last time your preferred topic was seriously entertained, you explicitly said you were going to wait until brainstorming was done before you said anything. + Show Spoiler +Then several (weeks? months?) passed, and you never said anything.
It's all on us to google and guess at just what "non-reformist reforms" means in practice, for example. And while no, you have no obligation to play educator, nobody else has obligation to go read theory, especially if it's revolutionary theory and you agree with me that most of them intend to aim to be as cozy as possible in the current system rather than upturn it. Because they are people, and that's just how people are. I heard somewhere that the "boiled frogs" concept is actually false, and frogs will escape a warming pot. Not sure if that's true, but I definitely think people are the frogs that get boiled. Our great ability to adapt also necessarily means that we feel things mostly in terms of the difference from our current state.
So no, people aren't choosing their politics to spite you personally.
But when people respond to your impolite requests/efforts to change entirely what they are talking about, frequently with a lot of deliberately inflammatory language, yeah that may have a big personal component.
That's not what happened. I'm still ready to talk about DPB's and my shared ideas of ""constitutional challenges" and "civil disobedience" in the streets" should the Trump administration (or a following one) sufficiently cross whatever threshold people have for it being an illegitimate government. I'm also open to continuing to brainstorm other ideas about what we should do if/when a Trump/Republican admin finally does.
I'm also open to discussing where that threshold is for individuals and where they feel it is in their personal political circles.
We're unclear on who specifically you're excluding with "most" and I think there's some important development to be had there particularly regarding how/if we can avoid being "boiling frogs" or you're suggesting something inevitable.
I'm willing to be as engaged or observant of those sorts of discussions (and plenty more) as people would like.
On a somewhat related but different note, I don't know that the US "justice system" can survive either letting Trump go free for what is/will obviously be an administration full of criminal activity or imprisoning him. I genuinely don't know how even if there is some peaceful democratic transfer of power from Trump to Democrats way out of this, that it doesn't just rubberband back to something even worse either way.
|
On June 02 2026 14:04 EnDeR_ wrote:
Every time I start typing a response to GH I stop and think "what am I expecting to get out of this?". So I normally just stop because I never get anything out of it.
I love how people who are very infrequent posters and might have not interacted with him at all already know not to engage with him, despite him trying to latch on every new person coming to post hoping they might buy into his prosecution fetish bullshit.
|
On June 02 2026 05:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
On to Trump on the Iranian military, and he does differentiate between IGRC and Iran military is some. He does use decimated a lot, He does say nothing left and he does use obliterated. So usual you are completely wrong.
Decimate sounds likely to be true. Because that originally just means destorying 1/10th of something sort of randomly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment)
The WH East wing was only the beginning.
|
On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here.
They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it.
Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release.
Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them.
|
On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them.
Pop civics lesson:
Do House discharge petitions or Senate cloture votes pass legislation?
|
On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. It sounds like the confusion is over bringing a bill out of committee versus the actual House vote.
The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I'm very happy about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie being gone, and Boebert and Mace are not too far behind with their share of sex/exposure/meltdown scandals.
|
United States44245 Posts
On March 24 2026 09:49 KwarK wrote:
It occurs to me that there’s a fundamental mismatch in the objectives of the Israel/US coalition. As far as we know they didn’t have an equivalent of the Casablanca conference where allied war goals were converged and established. The allies want very different things out of this war.
The senior party in the alliance wants Iran destroyed. It wants no nukes, no missiles, no proxy wars, no IRGC control. Full regime change. It lacks the military forces to do that so they’d quite like the junior party to actually do the invasion. They have no expeditionary army and lack the logistics and population to possibly invade Iran, only the US could do it.
The junior party mostly just wants things to go back to how they were. Ceasefire, strait open, Iran survives. There was no real ideological conviction, Rubio made it clear on day 1 that Israel decided on unilateral action and the assessment was that if the US would be dragged in anyway then they might as well take part in day 1 bombing.
Not only does Israel not agree with US war goals at this point, US war goals are in direct opposition to Israeli war goals. The US wants deescalation and normalization, Israel wants intensification until an eventual rubicon moment in which the US is forced to invade on Israel’s behalf.
And if Israel doesn’t agree to whatever ceasefire the US proposes then the war continues and the strait remains closed.
Trump's anger appeared to be driven by the fact that Netanyahu's decision to escalate in Lebanon was threatening to implode his negotiations with Iran.
https://www.axios.com/2026/06/01/trump-netanyahu-israel-lebanon-call
Trump may be on the verge of noticing that Israel is the senior party in this coalition and does not have his best interests in mind. Though this feels like a conversation they really should have had back in January.
|
On June 02 2026 22:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. Pop civics lesson: Do House discharge petitions or Senate cloture votes pass legislation?
Your decision to willfully ignore Congressmen changing their votes for opportunistic reasons is fortunately not infectious.
On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:
The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216.
I almost admire your ability to write words without saying anything.
|
Did the White House "leak" this to make it look like Trump is doing something about Israel without actually doing anything?
|
On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. It sounds like the confusion is over bringing a bill out of committee versus the actual House vote. The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I'm very happy about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie being gone, and Boebert and Mace are not too far behind with their share of sex/exposure/meltdown scandals.
What is it about Massie and his voting record do Republicans not like? Because to me it looks like his only issue is standing up to Trump specifically on Epstein. He was lock step with everything else.
|
On June 02 2026 20:32 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 14:04 EnDeR_ wrote:
Every time I start typing a response to GH I stop and think "what am I expecting to get out of this?". So I normally just stop because I never get anything out of it. I love how people who are very infrequent posters and might have not interacted with him at all already know not to engage with him, despite him trying to latch on every new person coming to post hoping they might buy into his prosecution fetish bullshit.
You guys can make whatever excuses/rationalizations for your inability/refusal to discuss anything other than your typical mocking and gawking that you want.
You guys insist on making it about me, but I'm not the reason you can't discuss these things (or pretty much anything else US politics) among yourselves at remotely the length you can shitpost with/about oBlade and the rest.
|
On June 02 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 22:46 oBlade wrote:On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. Pop civics lesson: Do House discharge petitions or Senate cloture votes pass legislation? Your decision to willfully ignore Congressmen changing their votes for opportunistic reasons is fortunately not infectious.
If I thought a president was a rapist, and Congress had a bill to expose files that I thought proved that, and only a single person in the entire Congress voted against it, I would be ecstatic and overjoyed and busy constantly thanking everyone except that one guy for making it happen (instead of going "yeah they voted against rape but I don't like the WAY they did it"). But then I'd have to also thank the alleged rapist himself for signing the bill into law LOL. So I can see why you're stuck.
Which by the way if the whole thing had been Johnson's idea, Massie would have been the NO vote. He believes nothing. He's a grifter. He's still promising he'll read/release a client list that he's "trust-me-bro" known about all along. MTG's principled resignation was... days after she became eligible for Congressional pension.
|
United States44245 Posts
What’s this “if”? He is a rapist. There was a whole court case about it.
You really need to pay more attention.
|
On June 03 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 22:46 oBlade wrote:On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. Pop civics lesson: Do House discharge petitions or Senate cloture votes pass legislation? Your decision to willfully ignore Congressmen changing their votes for opportunistic reasons is fortunately not infectious. If I thought a president was a rapist, and Congress had a bill to expose files that I thought proved that, and only a single person in the entire Congress voted against it, I would be ecstatic and overjoyed and busy constantly thanking everyone except that one guy for making it happen (instead of going "yeah they voted against rape but I don't like the WAY they did it"). But then I'd have to also thank the alleged rapist himself for signing the bill into law LOL. So I can see why you're stuck.
He signed it into law because he knew it would look even more incriminating if he vetoed it. He was literally begging Boebert and Mace to withdraw their names from the discharge petition so it wouldn't have come to that.
It turns out he had nothing to worry about because being a child rapist appears to make him more endearing to you and other hardcore MAGAts. Birds of a feather flock together I suppose.
|
On June 02 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:
The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I almost admire your ability to write words without saying anything. I'm correcting either a misperception or the facts in the case, which don't actually say much once you're done citing them.
On June 02 2026 23:47 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. It sounds like the confusion is over bringing a bill out of committee versus the actual House vote. The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I'm very happy about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie being gone, and Boebert and Mace are not too far behind with their share of sex/exposure/meltdown scandals. What is it about Massie and his voting record do Republicans not like? Because to me it looks like his only issue is standing up to Trump specifically on Epstein. He was lock step with everything else. He's a pretty looney libertarian, antisemite, and conspiracy idiot. Lone vote against a milquetoast condemnation of antisemitism. AIPAC controls all Republicans. Keeps talking about all these Epstein names he'll read into the record, and doesn't (the new one is he'll do it before his term ends, but one wonders why he didn't do it before he lost his primary). Compared COVID-19 vaccine to the holocaust.
He only looks normal next to the more extreme loons like Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Rest of his "only guy voting no" record is mostly libertarian opposition to Republican party agenda, but you can just google all that stuff. I'm more interested in why everybody should dislike him, rather than just Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
