EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5776
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3356 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
People who serve in the military deserve to vote the same as anyone else even if they're based halfway across the world. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17943 Posts
firstly, it can't be an oxymoron because there is always a "tallest person" in every room of people. That aside, this attitude was a big factor in Carter losing the 1980 election. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/reagans-showtime-movie-trump most people thought a Reagan presidency was a near impossibility because he was not taken seriously by the educated elite in the country The Democrats underestimated Reagan's intelligence. i'd say the guys who developed the HESA Shahed 136 drone are pretty conservative. Are they illiterate? How many people do they have to kill before you'd have to concede they can prolly read and write? It is a tragicomedy watching a 2-stroke engine result in so much defence spending. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24391 Posts
It isn't. That is unambiguously Democrats fault (arguably to their credit). What exactly do you guys think you lose by recognizing that? | ||
|
dyhb
United States804 Posts
On June 10 2026 18:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I really have trouble seeing this as anything but the most deliberate bad-faith attempt to mischaracterize another person's posts.The argument has been that dyhb and you and others have said that California's inefficient election process legitimizes conservatives' conspiratorial thinking Have you thought about whether the anger over why it takes weeks to find out tight election results advances conspiratorial thinking? Why is it taking so long, why can't we be like every other state (including big states) and countries? Oh, this guy knows the REAL reason why... Voters that still don't know the outcome of tight races one week after ... or two weeks after ... or three weeks after is pouring gasoline on that fire. They aren't responsible for the fire itself, so I'm not contesting your contribution. You're just ignoring the other affects for no good reason. How can you read anything about my posts and not come away understanding that the broken and delayed process makes an existing problem worse? Legitimizes? You read all that and say legitimizes?In my naivete, I saw potential allies that recognize the spread of conspiracy theories as eroding trust in Democracy and worth clear-minded examination towards mitigating the effects. But bring up one way that I think can limit and slow the spread, and I see these bad-faith responses, including that I'm legitimizing the conspiracy theories themselves. I know what makes them spread farther, I know what makes people more open to them, and I focus my efforts on the kinds of realistic and effective actions that respect a free society. So I set myself against those that make perfect the enemy of good. If your engagement is limited to assigning blame and decrying the originating acts themselves, then congratulations, you're preaching to the choir and making zero inroads on people that don't agree with you (maybe 2 people here, and I'm being generous). People to my right that believe them or maliciously spread them, and people to my left reiterating how it's evil and nobody can change and it's not worth doing anything and people attempting to do something are probably in league with the conspirators. | ||
KwarK
United States44386 Posts
On June 10 2026 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Everyone knows California, being the 4th biggest economy in the world on its own, being dominated for ~60 years by Democrats, including a super majority for the last ~decade, should absolutely be an exemplar of elections in the world. It isn't. That is unambiguously Democrats fault (arguably to their credit). What exactly do you guys think you lose by recognizing that? Ah yes, Democrats bad. Thanks for your input. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18470 Posts
On June 10 2026 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Everyone knows California, being the 4th biggest economy in the world on its own, being dominated for ~60 years by Democrats, including a super majority for the last ~decade, should absolutely be an exemplar of elections in the world. It isn't. That is unambiguously Democrats fault (arguably to their credit). What exactly do you guys think you lose by recognizing that? China, being the 1st biggest economy inthe world on its own, being dominated for ~100 years by CPC, including a super majority for the last ~99, should be an exemplar of elections in the world. It isn't. That is unambiguously CPC's fault (definitely not to their credit). ^^^ Tongue in cheek, but the message is that money does not fair elections make. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6605 Posts
On June 10 2026 22:46 Sermokala wrote: What the public hasn't been trained to understand is that elections often take much longer than people think to finish counting ballots. They're taught that elections get called by local news stations and that it somehow ends the process the same night even on the scale of the largest state in the union. In reality elections can and have switched weeks to months after the actual date where votes were cast. People who serve in the military deserve to vote the same as anyone else even if they're based halfway across the world. Yeah Texas and Florida count overseas military. There's no problem. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24391 Posts
I said it is arguably to their credit. It is one of their best examples of fighting back, alongside the blatantly partisan redistricting. Why would/do you think that makes them bad? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24391 Posts
On June 10 2026 23:26 Acrofales wrote: China, being the 1st biggest economy inthe world on its own, being dominated for ~100 years by CPC, including a super majority for the last ~99, should be an exemplar of elections in the world. It isn't. That is unambiguously CPC's fault (definitely not to their credit). ^^^ Tongue in cheek, but the message is that money does not fair elections make. Equating Democrats with the CPC is an interesting choice, but who exactly is supposed to have a better tack on US democracy than US Democrats with near absolute control and a budget that dwarfs much more effective democracies? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46532 Posts
On June 10 2026 23:17 dyhb wrote: I really have trouble seeing this as anything but the most deliberate bad-faith attempt to mischaracterize another person's posts. How can you read anything about my posts and not come away understanding that the broken and delayed process makes an existing problem worse? Legitimizes? You read all that and say legitimizes? What are you talking about? Those are the exact statements that support what I said that you were saying. Those quotes demonstrate that you think conspiracy theorists feel they are justified in being suspicious of election integrity because California takes a while to complete their elections. You're saying it's no wonder that this "advances conspiratorial thinking" and that this inefficiency "is pouring gasoline on that fire". Is this a semantics issue? Are you and I using different definitions of "legitimizes"? Because you're clearly stating that California's inefficiency is making the conspiracy theorists feel that their concerns are legitimate / reasonable / understandable. The inefficiency might not be the only reason why conspiracy theorists freak out over California elections, but it gives them extra ammunition... they wonder, to quote you, "Why is it taking so long, why can't we be like every other state (including big states) and countries? Oh, this guy knows the REAL reason why..." | ||
|
KwarK
United States44386 Posts
On June 10 2026 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote: I said it is arguably to their credit. It is one of their best examples of fighting back, alongside the blatantly partisan redistricting. Why would/do you think that makes them bad? Ah yes, Democrats good. Thanks for your input. | ||
|
dyhb
United States804 Posts
On June 10 2026 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You are really really going to have to separate in your mind two different things. One is taking action to curb the pernicious influence of bad things in society. The other is justifying, excusing, or calling good the bad things in society. I don't think it is a semantics issue, since you are apparently having an incredibly difficult time separating these in your mind.What are you talking about? Those are the exact statements that support what I said that you were saying. Those quotes demonstrate that you think conspiracy theorists feel they are justified in being suspicious of election integrity because California takes a while to complete their elections. You're saying it's no wonder that this "advances conspiratorial thinking" and that this inefficiency "is pouring gasoline on that fire". Is this a semantics issue? Are you and I using different definitions of "legitimizes"? Because you're clearly stating that California's inefficiency is making the conspiracy theorists feel that their concerns are legitimate / reasonable / understandable. The inefficiency might not be the only reason why conspiracy theorists freak out over California elections, but it gives them extra ammunition... they wonder, to quote you, "Why is it taking so long, why can't we be like every other state (including big states) and countries? Oh, this guy knows the REAL reason why..." You're far too focused on calling people that want to fix the problem as somehow forgiving or condoning the existence of the problem in and of itself. I should call you a pretty bad math teacher if you point at a teacher going over common math mistakes on the whiteboard to say, "Look at this guy! Legitimizing bad math mistakes by writing them down on the board! Clearly, he's reinforcing in the minds of the students that shoddy solution techniques are acceptable in the world of rigorous mathematics!" Sorry, bro, but pointing out their existence and contribution to/acceleration of other ills is an entire world away from legitimization, and doesn't rank-order each mistake in terms of reasonability. + Show Spoiler + Those quotes demonstrate that you think conspiracy theorists feel they are justified in being suspicious of election integrity because California takes a while to complete their elections. This is a little in keeping with my point, and a little tangential. You really think conspiracy theorists don't themselves feel they are justified? Yes, I do think they feel they are justified. And my focus is on how can we limit how they're able to spread such theories to people that aren't already believers! Things like removing an anomalously long counting process that has frustrating, but less pernicious, origins and is eminently solvable as shown by almost every populous state and country in the developed world. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46532 Posts
On June 11 2026 00:31 dyhb wrote: You are really really going to have to separate in your mind two different things. One is taking action to curb the pernicious influence of bad things in society. The other is justifying, excusing, or calling good the bad things in society. I don't think it is a semantics issue, since you are apparently having an incredibly difficult time separating these in your mind. You're far too focused on calling people that want to fix the problem as somehow forgiving or condoning the existence of the problem in and of itself. I should call you a pretty bad math teacher if you point at a teacher going over common math mistakes on the whiteboard to say, "Look at this guy! Legitimizing bad math mistakes by writing them down on the board! Clearly, he's reinforcing in the minds of the students that shoddy solution techniques are acceptable in the world of rigorous mathematics!" Sorry, bro, but pointing out their existence and contribution to/acceleration of other ills is an entire world away from legitimization, and doesn't rank-order each mistake in terms of reasonability. I think you're giving yourself way too much credit on what (and how) you're contributing to this conversation, especially if you look at the pushback you're receiving. The "two different things" that you're insisting I separate were both being pushed by you. You're bringing up what you perceive to be a way to reduce conspiracy theories (not accounting for what happens in real life, which is what I wrote earlier: "even if California ran more smoothly than any other state, Republicans would still make up conspiracy theories about any election they lose being rigged"), while also making statements that legitimize those conspiracy theories. You're trying to have it both ways and then complaining when people take issue with at least one (if not both) of your positions. While I appreciate the importance of discussing common math mistakes with students so that those errors aren't committed again, the equivalent analogy would be to discuss mistakes in reasoning with conspiracy theorists* so that those errors aren't committed again. For example, we can explain why an election taking a while doesn't imply there's foul play, and we can compare similarly low / negligible rates of fraud across different states (regardless of how long they take to complete their election). *I don't know if conspiracy theorists will understand and learn at the same rate as good-faith students, but I think that additional inconsistency in your analogy is perhaps less important to the original point you were trying to make. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2841 Posts
On June 10 2026 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Everyone knows California, being the 4th biggest economy in the world on its own, being dominated for ~60 years by Democrats, including a super majority for the last ~decade, should absolutely be an exemplar of elections in the world. It isn't. That is unambiguously Democrats fault (arguably to their credit). What exactly do you guys think you lose by recognizing that? This is kinda where I land, yeah. Seems obvious (superficially) that California's elections could be better, but rather than concede that point, there's fighting on that hill. For what? What are you/they fighting over? What do you lose by conceding the hill? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3356 Posts
On June 11 2026 01:53 Fleetfeet wrote: This is kinda where I land, yeah. Seems obvious (superficially) that California's elections could be better, but rather than concede that point, there's fighting on that hill. For what? What are you/they fighting over? What do you lose by conceding the hill? It'd be nice if the ballots were counted faster, sure, but this is now my third or fourth time asking whose life is negatively affected by taking 7-10 days to count instead of 1-2? I'm literally struggling to think of a less consequential issue in the world right now. There was some chatter about conspiracy theorists but so long as they're monetarily rewarded for saying rage-inducingly stupid shit on social media, faster counting won't affect their life at all. They're just as likely to spread conspiracy theories about ballots being counted too quickly. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On June 11 2026 01:53 Fleetfeet wrote: This is kinda where I land, yeah. Seems obvious (superficially) that California's elections could be better, but rather than concede that point, there's fighting on that hill. For what? What are you/they fighting over? What do you lose by conceding the hill? I never fought on that hill. I said a reasonable ask would be to make California's tallying faster. My fight is that I don't that it's the main contributor to why people think it's rigged. My contention is the main source is the President of the United States and his supportive media echo chambers calling Rigged! Rigged! before any election is the main cause of conspiracies and then the same supporting media echo chamber clip chimps during and after the election to support the conspiracy narrative. And the President broadcasts these lies on his reTruths and will not be corrected even when his own aides try to show him the full context. On June 10 2026 03:21 Falling wrote: A reasonable ask would be, hey California could you speed up your process, we need results in a more timely manner. That is not what is happening. 2016 Election is RIGGED rigged! (wins anyways) 2020 Election is rigged. RIGGED! (loses but try to rig the election in his favour by leaning on States to find votes for him) 2024 Election is rigggggged RIGGED RIGGED! rigggggged! (wins anyways) California election RIGGGGGGGGGGGED! Rigged! RIGGGED! From the President of the United States of America and his cronies and his followers. Is NOT the same thing 'California should be faster' Thank you for your attention to this matter. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46532 Posts
On June 11 2026 01:53 Fleetfeet wrote: This is kinda where I land, yeah. Seems obvious (superficially) that California's elections could be better, but rather than concede that point, there's fighting on that hill. For what? What are you/they fighting over? What do you lose by conceding the hill? I think some people are defending that hill because they perceive the initial topic to be presented with an ulterior motive. To quote something I had written earlier to Razyda: "If Introvert and the rest of you had started and stopped with something like "Why is it that California's elections are so inefficient compared to other states? Here's what I found. Is this ideal? Does it make sense to improve these things? How could they be fixed?" then it might be perceived as a good-faith topic. Instead, we see people spinning off into claiming the left is maliciously undermining elections in California and that people ought to be suspicious." | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2841 Posts
On June 11 2026 02:08 Falling wrote: I never fought on that hill. I said a reasonable ask would be to make California's tallying faster. My fight is that I don't that it's the main contributor to why people think it's rigged. My contention is the main source is the President of the United States and his supportive media echo chambers calling Rigged! Rigged! before any election is the main cause of conspiracies and then the same supporting media echo chamber clip chimps during and after the election to support the conspiracy narrative. And the President broadcasts these lies on his reTruths and will not be corrected even when his own aides try to show him the full context. Roger. Thanks! I hadn't been following closely enough, so I'm misreading/misunderstanding what hill you're fighting on. That satisfies my question at least, though I can't speak for GH. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 11 2026 01:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think you're giving yourself way too much credit on what (and how) you're contributing to this conversation, especially if you look at the pushback you're receiving. The "two different things" that you're insisting I separate were both being pushed by you. You're bringing up what you perceive to be a way to reduce conspiracy theories (not accounting for what happens in real life, which is what I wrote earlier: "even if California ran more smoothly than any other state, Republicans would still make up conspiracy theories about any election they lose being rigged"), while also making statements that legitimize those conspiracy theories. You're trying to have it both ways and then complaining when people take issue with at least one (if not both) of your positions. While I appreciate the importance of discussing common math mistakes with students so that those errors aren't committed again, the equivalent analogy would be to discuss mistakes in reasoning with conspiracy theorists* so that those errors aren't committed again. For example, we can explain why an election taking a while doesn't imply there's foul play, and we can compare similarly low / negligible rates of fraud across different states (regardless of how long they take to complete their election). *I don't know if conspiracy theorists will understand and learn at the same rate as good-faith students, but I think that additional inconsistency in your analogy is perhaps less important to the original point you were trying to make. If, emphasis on that particular word, dangling a few carrots would placate people and stave off a lack of faith in various institutions, I mean I do think that is worth pursuing. I do rather suspect, as it seems you also do that this would not actually happen. It’ll just shift to mail in ballots, voting machines or whatever else. In isolation though, yeah can still be worth expediting some of those processes and seeming inefficiencies. Sure ‘We have to do x to stem conspiracy theories and whatnot’ seems quite daft to me and extremely unidirectional as a demand (or suggestion) given well, the behaviour of certain folks last election. It’s like a couple’s counselling session where the therapist blames one partner’s rampant infidelity on the other and suggests they’ll be faithful if only their partner did the dishes more promptly | ||
| ||
