EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5783
| 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 States3047 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11952 Posts
On June 15 2026 18:29 Jankisa wrote: Let's imagine the nightmare world of Hillary winning instead of Trump. It's 2020 and she just got re-elected in an overwhelming victory because Trump couldn't let 2016 go and had just enough grips over the Republican party for them to stay in a mutually destructive death spiral. She coasted on Obama's recovering economy, kept the pandemic responses teams in place and handled the pandemic quite well, considering the circumstances, USA is the most vaccinated country and they got it first, she extended a helping hand to North Korea and Iran and shipped them vaccines as well. Since Netanyahu was ousted in 2018 and then indicted, the more moderate Israel scaled back the West Bank settlements and made concessions in Gaza, resulting in a normalization of relations between most of the Arab world and them. The Iranian 2020 elections are basically an inverse of what they were in this fucked timeline where JCPOE remained in place and orange war criminal didn't blow up their most popular general on tarmac in Iraq, so reformists, instead of theocrats win 76 % of the vote, and in a historic move their first order of business is to sign the accords of normalization of relations with Israel and ask for Hesbolah and Hamas to come to the table. That's just a fantasy world of mine that some time I like to think about, unfortunately, due to the inherent racism and brainwashed hatred people like oBlade have for immigrants, we get to live in the world of perpetual war and destruction. I can offen an even better fantasy world, and it requires much less change. Al Gore wins against Bush in 2001. A few votes in Florida is all that is necessary. Gore is president when 9/11 happens, and doesn't totally destabilize the middle east for no good reason with pointless wars. In my opinion, that was ultimately when stuff started to go downwards. But yeah, sadly we got stuck in the bad timeline. | ||
micronesia
United States24793 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5021 Posts
On June 15 2026 22:18 micronesia wrote: I wonder if Newt Gingrich not becoming speaker in the 90s and normalizing such a confrontational approach to politics would have lessened a lot of the problems that followed. I may just lack perspective from decades earlier than that, but that seems like what spawned a lot of across-the-aisle hatred that makes working together almost impossible now. Gingrich, who I will note gets too much hate but it's to be expected, was a symptom not a cause. The New Deal coalition was finally dead. The "good days" when dems could just expect to have control of an entire house permanently were over and it was the voters who decided that, not camera hungry politicians. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24793 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3047 Posts
On June 15 2026 22:44 Introvert wrote: Gingrich, who I will note gets too much hate but it's to be expected Gingrich impeached the president for having an affair while he was himself cheating on his wife, who was previously his mistress from when his first wife had cancer. I guess we should overlook that the party that prides itself on its Christian values still has him on FOX News calling for the death penalty for people caught with two ounces of cannabis. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44245 Posts
On June 15 2026 17:37 oBlade wrote: What was your plan for when the historic deal expired? It's literally not a problem, if the deal expires without incident then that means we've won. It means that Iran has gotten used to the revenues and market access it has without sanctions. It means the US has demonstrated that it can keep a deal with Iran and not invade it. It means the moderates on both sides have managed to deliver to their electorates through compromise what the hardliners couldn't through conflict. If it expires without incident then who in Iran is saying "we need to go back to being sanctioned by everyone because we need a nuke for national survival"? And who are they convincing to sign on to this dogshit plan? Who is going to give up on having goods because some hardliner who says the US is going to invade every week says that no, this week the US is really about to invade against a backdrop of a successful deal that lasted the duration? Cooperation continues because it is by far the better option for all parties and everyone involved knows it. Conflict is a negative sum game, nobody wins, it only becomes rational when you are facing a proven irrational actor. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1083 Posts
On June 15 2026 21:57 Simberto wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 15 2026 18:29 Jankisa wrote: Let's imagine the nightmare world of Hillary winning instead of Trump. It's 2020 and she just got re-elected in an overwhelming victory because Trump couldn't let 2016 go and had just enough grips over the Republican party for them to stay in a mutually destructive death spiral. She coasted on Obama's recovering economy, kept the pandemic responses teams in place and handled the pandemic quite well, considering the circumstances, USA is the most vaccinated country and they got it first, she extended a helping hand to North Korea and Iran and shipped them vaccines as well. Since Netanyahu was ousted in 2018 and then indicted, the more moderate Israel scaled back the West Bank settlements and made concessions in Gaza, resulting in a normalization of relations between most of the Arab world and them. The Iranian 2020 elections are basically an inverse of what they were in this fucked timeline where JCPOE remained in place and orange war criminal didn't blow up their most popular general on tarmac in Iraq, so reformists, instead of theocrats win 76 % of the vote, and in a historic move their first order of business is to sign the accords of normalization of relations with Israel and ask for Hesbolah and Hamas to come to the table. That's just a fantasy world of mine that some time I like to think about, unfortunately, due to the inherent racism and brainwashed hatred people like oBlade have for immigrants, we get to live in the world of perpetual war and destruction. I can offen an even better fantasy world, and it requires much less change. Al Gore wins against Bush in 2001. A few votes in Florida is all that is necessary. Gore is president when 9/11 happens, and doesn't totally destabilize the middle east for no good reason with pointless wars. In my opinion, that was ultimately when stuff started to go downwards. But yeah, sadly we got stuck in the bad timeline. Bernie 2016. When the democrats actually cheated (themselves out of the better choice). Hillary 2016 and Biden 2024 were awful candidates. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44245 Posts
On June 15 2026 23:24 r00ty wrote: Bernie 2016. When the democrats actually cheated (themselves out of the better choice). Hillary 2016 and Biden 2024 were awful candidates. In addition to not winning the superdelegates in 2016 Bernie also didn't win the regulardelegates. He just didn't win. | ||
|
dyhb
United States618 Posts
On June 15 2026 22:18 micronesia wrote: Gingrich normalized a confrontational approach to politics? I'm trying to remember an American political era that wasn't confrontational. Literal duels that shot people dead soon after founding. Caning by a congressman against a senator, pre-civil war. Denying the House a quorum to do anything post-civil war. Calling FDR a fascist and socialist for his New Deal stuff. Joseph McCarthy. Filibuster of civil rights legislation by Democrats.I wonder if Newt Gingrich not becoming speaker in the 90s and normalizing such a confrontational approach to politics would have lessened a lot of the problems that followed. I may just lack perspective from decades earlier than that, but that seems like what spawned a lot of across-the-aisle hatred that makes working together almost impossible now. I think Gingrich is being unduly punished for being successful, not for starting anything particularly new in politics via confrontation. I'm sorry to say that ending 40 years of gerrymandered House rule by Democrats didn't happen more pleasantly, but history is full of such examples. And I rather liked the historical example of using a Contract with America, a clear legislative agenda to pitch nationally, as an example worth repeating for both parties. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6396 Posts
Nice to meet you too, brother. The phrasing of your question makes it seem like you're in an instant gratification mindset. That is not how the world works. The "plan" is if Iran steps out of line the US can bomb them or invade them a bit, and if they step out of line a lot they can bomb them and invade them a lot. At the moment their export economy is toast which the government/military depends on. Can't export means no revenue, and can't store excess production, so that means shutting down production. The world has certainly had 20 years of real wage stagnation but neither Trump nor the last 3 months did that. The "crashing the world economy" amounts to.... Brent crude now being elevated to the average price it was in the latter half of the Biden administration. He could certainly nuke them instantly but there's nothing in the situation now urgent enough to warrant that unless I'm missing something, is there? | ||
|
Billyboy
2153 Posts
On June 16 2026 00:34 oBlade wrote: Nice to meet you too, brother. The phrasing of your question makes it seem like you're in an instant gratification mindset. That is not how the world works. The "plan" is if Iran steps out of line the US can bomb them or invade them a bit, and if they step out of line a lot they can bomb them and invade them a lot. At the moment their export economy is toast which the government/military depends on. Can't export means no revenue, and can't store excess production, so that means shutting down production. The world has certainly had 20 years of real wage stagnation but neither Trump nor the last 3 months did that. The "crashing the world economy" amounts to.... Brent crude now being elevated to the average price it was in the latter half of the Biden administration. He could certainly nuke them instantly but there's nothing in the situation now urgent enough to warrant that unless I'm missing something, is there? Was there something urgent enough to start this? Seems like bad criteria. | ||
|
Yurie
12149 Posts
On June 15 2026 23:23 KwarK wrote: It's literally not a problem, if the deal expires without incident then that means we've won. It means that Iran has gotten used to the revenues and market access it has without sanctions. It means the US has demonstrated that it can keep a deal with Iran and not invade it. It means the moderates on both sides have managed to deliver to their electorates through compromise what the hardliners couldn't through conflict. If it expires without incident then who in Iran is saying "we need to go back to being sanctioned by everyone because we need a nuke for national survival"? And who are they convincing to sign on to this dogshit plan? Who is going to give up on having goods because some hardliner who says the US is going to invade every week says that no, this week the US is really about to invade against a backdrop of a successful deal that lasted the duration? Cooperation continues because it is by far the better option for all parties and everyone involved knows it. Conflict is a negative sum game, nobody wins, it only becomes rational when you are facing a proven irrational actor. Sadly this was recently proven wrong when Russia invaded Ukraine. Though I would agree hoping it worked in this case (as it does in most cases) would have been a much better outcome. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3047 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22527 Posts
And that is before we consider that 'we bombed them a lot' seems to have no real effect. I think the threat of invasion by the US was bigger before this war then during, or will be after. Because the reality is that all the bombing so far doesn't seem to have done a whole lot, and the US has been proven to be unable to deep the strait open. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On June 15 2026 23:31 KwarK wrote: Setting aside the carnival game style rigging of a primary that they argued they legally wouldn't have to let Sanders be the nominee of even if he did win, the key point there is that Democrats denied themselves of the better choice. Instead they stubbornly chose the candidate that literally helped intentionally elevate Trump as a leader of the pack/representative of mainstream Republicans. In addition to not winning the superdelegates in 2016 Bernie also didn't win the regulardelegates. He just didn't win. Instead of forcing Republican voters (who actually liked Bernie more than any other viable Dem nominee in our lives) to deny the country of a Bernie Sanders presidency, Democrats sabotaged themselves, the country, and effectively the world because they believe it would make Republicans seem bad enough to mean Democrats could win while still being trash. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3047 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On June 16 2026 02:02 LightSpectra wrote: Yep, the 15 million Democratic primary voters that thought Clinton was a better choice than Sanders in 2016 literally did so because they cognizantly wanted to betray their kin, country, and world. That's a hinged take that corresponds to reality. Of course not. It's easier to build and destroy your own strawman than actually reconcile reality with your worldview though, so we get a shitpost like that from you instead. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3047 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44245 Posts
On June 16 2026 00:51 Yurie wrote: Sadly this was recently proven wrong when Russia invaded Ukraine. Though I would agree hoping it worked in this case (as it does in most cases) would have been a much better outcome. Russia didn't make a deal and then decline to extend it. Russia was always like this. It wasn't going to be any other way. Iran had a dominant faction that felt that they could work with the west, that believed they didn't need to go full NK nuclear pariah. Peace was possible and with peace there was no need for nukes and without the nuclear question a lot of the other issues got cleared up by default. The US systematically undermined and then murdered that faction leaving behind only extremists who were proven right by the US at every step of the way. It is absolutely unlike Russia. | ||
| ||
