|
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 08 2026 02:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Then why was Harris working for and getting endorsements from extreme leftists like Dick Cheney? Why was she unwilling to bridge the divide?
It’s strange that no one wants to be far right in the US but somehow there is no one right of their positions.
|
Canada11529 Posts
Trump calls the US third world because of his delusions/ lies that every election is rigged. The reporter is crooked because she won't accept his claim without evidence that California's election is rigged. (Taking a long time to tally is not the same thing as rigged.) She's just trying to skip over that part and not even argue the point. But because she will not submit, Trump, the messiah, rage quits.
He's right, in a sense, because he and his cronies are turning the US into a corrupt third world world. Just pardoned a fellow party member who was convicted of insider trading. Makes sense, of course, because Trump is currently engaged in insider trading, buying up stocks of companies that he knows will receive government contracts. And Trump ally Ellison has successfully dismantled 60 Minutes because they as journalists they maintained their independence and wouldn't toe the line of the Dear Leader. Journalists are barred from the Pentagon office buildings. But who cares about all that because of gas prices or something.
|
On June 08 2026 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven.I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:39 Vivax wrote:
Whatever. I'm not here to argue about proving or disproving religion or the big bang. I just found the thought process similar between that phrase and what exists as a still unproven theory.
You can intuitively know or at least accurately guess things without material proof, sometimes. Not a fan of pure materialism either way. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory.You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers. A "scientific theory" is the gold standard of explanatory and predictive power. There is nothing better or more accurate or more empirically supported than a scientific theory for a given set of phenomena, observations, data, laws, and mathematics that are about a specific topic.
Not that I agree with Vivax, but You guys really should be more careful and precise when discussing science. I mean, is String Theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Also yes.
Is Loop Quantum Gravity a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Most likely.
Is multiverse theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Does it matter?
Is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Depends on who you ask.
I could go on, but I hope you get where I am going.
Also, I noticed you mentioned Big Bang in your list. I hope you are aware that many physicists, including some Nobel Prize laureates, do not actually believe in the Big Bang?
PS. Scientific theories (outside of math) aren't really ever proven (in the strong sense of the word).
PS. I do believe in the modern theory of evolution. I also believe it can be wrong, as any scientific theory can be shown to be wrong by new observations and replaced with a better theory.
|
Northern Ireland26964 Posts
On June 08 2026 03:24 KwarK wrote:
WombaT keeps pointing out the Starmer situation and how it is a case study in what the self identifying moderates are talking about but people don't seem to care.
Labour tried appealing to the old school socialists with Corbyn but was defeated in the election and the result was the most incompetent right wing mismanagement in the history of the UK, peaking with Liz Truss and her declaration that government economic policy would be to borrow and never repay (borrow from who Liz? You announced that you weren't going to repay before you got the loan!). The scandals of Conservative rule were truly breathtaking and unforgivable, ministers in charge of providing PPE to frontline NHS workers during the pandemic giving contracts to their mates knowing the PPE was defective, telling people they couldn't go into the hospital to say goodbye to their dying parents because of social distancing while they themselves threw fucking parties. The British right wing's incompetence at the day to day administration of government was only matched by their lack of basic ethics.
Starmer got in as a moderate and has set about doing the things that people have been begging for. For over a decade one of the most important issues for voters has been migrants entering on small boats and every right wing administration that has pledged to deal with it has campaigned on it and then allowed it to get worse, only to be voted back in on the same issue. For the first time the numbers are going down under Starmer. He's actually doing the thing. And the voters who say that that is their most important issue hate him and want to vote back in even more extremist right wingers.
It's an extremely important case study on the "why not meet the 'centrists' where they're at" approach and wombat keeps bringing it up and it keeps getting ignored.
Yeah, pretty much exactly my point. I believe you’re more plugged into UK specific politics than some here, so perhaps that’s why my point has maybe not been fully parsed in the manner I meant
Cut immigration, because we want sensible immigration policy? - Yes
Cut the ‘weird trans stuff’ because that’s a big deal for some reason - yes
Stop being so obsessed with race because we don’t like that - Also largely yes
Labour have largely pivoted to what the ostensible middle have been asking for, and hey it turns out many don’t like it anyway!
Also as Kwark alluded to it’s genuinely hard to overstate quite how bad the Tories were over here, especially latterly with Liz Truss being the nadir. Which was tolerated for well over a decade
My personal read is that said ‘sensible centre’ is actually much more reactionary than is thought, or indeed they themselves even realise, so throwing them a bone doesn’t actually do anything for you, they’ll still bat their eyelashes at Nigel Farage, while at the same time you lose a lot of buy-in and faith from your actual traditional support base.
I’ll add the caveat that this is more of an issue in 2 party systems, or systems that are de-facto close to that, and less so in systems where building cross-party coalitions is effectively necessary to govern.
|
On June 08 2026 04:13 Silvanel wrote:
Also, I noticed you mentioned Big Bang in your list. I hope you are aware that many physicists, including some Nobel Prize laureates, do not actually believe in the Big Bang?
This isn't a thing. I assume you're talking about Penrose since you mentioned CCC, but in it every cycle is started by a big bang, no serious person denies that the big bang actually happened, some just have a pet hypothesis attached to it and its meaning.
On June 08 2026 04:13 Silvanel wrote:
PS. I do believe in the modern theory of evolution. I also believe it can be wrong, as any scientific theory can be shown to be wrong by new observations and replaced with a better theory.
Can it though? The new observations wouldn't invalidate previous ones, it would have to encompass them. It wouldn't be replaced, it would be built on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
