EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5864
| 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 States3126 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17838 Posts
This is very interesting. China saving the world from all the Trump shenanigans. And it's actually quite crazy how they did it and the implications of it. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18425 Posts
On July 17 2026 17:35 oBlade wrote: Your link doesn't seem to debunk dead and foreigners on voter rolls. Is this a joke? Someone in Spain is linking a newspaper in France that says "we think foreigners in the US don't vote very often" as a response to the fact of there being hundreds of thousands of dead and foreigners registered to vote. "Voter roll" means "list of people who can vote." It's different than "list of people who voted in a given election." Is that what you misunderstood? Otherwise your response doesn't make sense. "It's illegal for noncitizens to vote" is a pretty clueless rebuttal to the fact that there are foreigners registered to vote, because noncitizens registering to vote IS ALSO ALREADY ILLEGAL. Not a confidence-inspiring piece of propaganda. Worried about foreigners voting? Don't worry, it's illegal! Ah, they won't vote because it's illegal, but so it was legal for them to register, then? No, that was illegal too. ... Being registered is the problem. Your newspaper which quotes a blog seems to be debunking a different claim you imagined I said, like "These dead and foreigner votes flipped a specific election," which you have a Pavlovian response for. Find someone claiming that and debunk them. I linked an AFP article because I figured you'd prefer it over left-wing propaganda rags like www.reuters.com, PBS or www.cbsnews.com. But sure, my bad. Next time I'll make sure to stick to AMUHRICAN sources for you! Doesn't change the fact that everything you said is thoroughly debunked. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3126 Posts
Where all you dumb assholes who kept calling the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" at? | ||
|
dyhb
United States673 Posts
On July 17 2026 23:10 Manit0u wrote: He’s a little too much of a special pleader and downplays or lightly touches on counter arguments. It would benefit from releasing a second episode with an economist guest actually challenging the host on facts and suppositions. The podcast/youtube problem is that the host cherry-picks the selection of what information to display and how seriously or lightly it addresses competing theories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkA0bkb6ZO0 This is very interesting. China saving the world from all the Trump shenanigans. And it's actually quite crazy how they did it and the implications of it. | ||
|
dyhb
United States673 Posts
On July 18 2026 00:42 LightSpectra wrote: I don’t think the smart ones challenged who Russia wanted to win and their influence towards that. It was whether the Trump campaign actively colluded with them. Two years answered that one. Document Declassified by Trump Reveals Russia Tried To Help Him Win the 2020 Election: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/document-declassified-by-trump-reveals-russia-tried-to-help-him-win-the-2020-election/ Where all you dumb assholes who kept calling the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" at? | ||
|
Billyboy
2258 Posts
On July 18 2026 00:48 dyhb wrote: I don’t think the smart ones challenged who Russia wanted to win and their influence towards that. It was whether the Trump campaign actively colluded with them. Two years answered that one. Bold claim that there are smart ones. The actual smart ones know Trump would have accepted and asked for any help he could. They are just OK with the cheating to win attitude. | ||
|
dyhb
United States673 Posts
On July 18 2026 00:58 Billyboy wrote: The trouble with the “would have” in a legal context is that we don’t say somebody committed adultery if you’re just very sure he would have if there was a better opportunity.Bold claim that there are smart ones. The actual smart ones know Trump would have accepted and asked for any help he could. They are just OK with the cheating to win attitude. The dumb view is that Russia didn’t have a favorite and didn’t exert covert and overt influence to get their preferred election outcome. Thats dumb on so many levels. Everyone knows the preferred pick on both sides. We allow foreign activists to volunteer for domestic campaigns … Labour did it for Clinton and Kamala … Farage did it for Trump … public statements and convention envoys from PES/Greens. The smarter, relative term, is whether there was actually collusion or criminal conspiracy. Obviously don’t look for nuance on that topic if the person thinks Trump won 2020 or tariffs will grow revenue without causing inflation. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3126 Posts
On July 18 2026 00:48 dyhb wrote: I don’t think the smart ones challenged who Russia wanted to win and their influence towards that. It was whether the Trump campaign actively colluded with them. Two years answered that one. Just a reminder of what happened after the 2016 election, which Russia also interfered in to assist Donald Trump: On November 11, 2017, after meeting Vladimir Putin at a summit in Vietnam, Trump said, "I just asked him again. He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. ... Every time he sees me he says: 'I didn't do that,' and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it."[572] Trump went on to contrast Putin's "very strongly, vehemently" spoken denials with the word of American former intelligence officials who he termed as "political hacks": John Brennan, James Clapper, and the "liar" and "leaker" James Comey.[573] ... In 2019, The Washington Post revealed that (according to former officials) in May 2017 Trump had privately told Russian officials Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak he wasn't concerned about Russia interfering in American elections.[447][576] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Donald_Trump and The Trump administration reacted to the briefing by American intelligence officials to the House Intelligence Committee that Russia was interfering in the 2020 election in an effort to get Trump re-elected[64][65][66] by rejecting the efforts were in favor of Trump[154] and by firing Joseph Maguire, who was involved in those reports.[64][65][66] By contrast, Trump and his national security adviser Robert O'Brien[155] accepted reports the Russians were supporting the nomination of Bernie Sanders.[50][156] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections#Trump_administration_reaction | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22551 Posts
On July 18 2026 00:48 dyhb wrote: I don’t think the smart ones challenged who Russia wanted to win and their influence towards that. It was whether the Trump campaign actively colluded with them. Two years answered that one. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,"-Trump | ||
|
dyhb
United States673 Posts
On July 18 2026 01:38 LightSpectra wrote: Yes, the smart ones don’t challenge inference, only collusion. A lot of dumb ones will challenge interference. But something like 50-60% think the 2020 election was stolen, and more if you include vague statements on voter id and mail in ballots. Just a reminder of what happened after the 2016 election, which Russia also interfered in to assist Donald Trump: On November 11, 2017, after meeting Vladimir Putin at a summit in Vietnam, Trump said, "I just asked him again. He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. ... Every time he sees me he says: 'I didn't do that,' and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it."[572] Trump went on to contrast Putin's "very strongly, vehemently" spoken denials with the word of American former intelligence officials who he termed as "political hacks": John Brennan, James Clapper, and the "liar" and "leaker" James Comey.[573] ... In 2019, The Washington Post revealed that (according to former officials) in May 2017 Trump had privately told Russian officials Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak he wasn't concerned about Russia interfering in American elections.[447][576] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Donald_Trump and The Trump administration reacted to the briefing by American intelligence officials to the House Intelligence Committee that Russia was interfering in the 2020 election in an effort to get Trump re-elected[64][65][66] by rejecting the efforts were in favor of Trump[154] and by firing Joseph Maguire, who was involved in those reports.[64][65][66] By contrast, Trump and his national security adviser Robert O'Brien[155] accepted reports the Russians were supporting the nomination of Bernie Sanders.[50][156] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections#Trump_administration_reaction | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1671 Posts
The 2020 election has been a purity test for Trump loyalists, federal judges have been refusing to answer that question, in the most recent example the DNI nominee simply refused to answer the question repeatedly: Which is absolutely insane. A career lawyer, ex-head of SDNY one of the most prestigious prosecutor offices in the world simply refuses to reply to a question on facts. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3126 Posts
On July 18 2026 01:52 dyhb wrote: Yes, the smart ones don’t challenge inference, only collusion. A lot of dumb ones will challenge interference. But something like 50-60% think the 2020 election was stolen, and more if you include vague statements on voter id and mail in ballots. If a bank got robbed, and the money mysteriously showed up in the house of one of the bank employees, and that same employee stonewalled any investigation into how the money ended up there, and that same employee is also vowing he will ensure nobody will ever stop the money from a future bank robbery from mysteriously appearing in his house, it's not a "witch hunt" to investigate how it got there. That's the point. There doesn't need to be a tape of Trump saying "Putin, I'm begging you, hack the election", the currently existing evidence is enough to establish willful collusion. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6451 Posts
On July 17 2026 22:57 LightSpectra wrote: John Solomon, a member of Trump’s election task force, confessed that there is no proof of election fraud in the last three elections: https://newrepublic.com/post/213185/trump-election-fraud-guy-john-solomon-found-no-proof No, the idea there was no proof of fraud in the last 3 elections is an editorialized addition by the incompetent, or malicious, or schizophrenic journalist Malcolm Ferguson. Solomon wasn't even talking about fraud. Solomon's statement was that it hasn't come out that a foreign power hacked/flipped votes. One of the releases yesterday is that certain systems are vulnerable to hacking. Do you guys understand that vulnerability is a problem per se, even if nobody has untraceably hacked and flipped votes in an election yet or not? One release is the Venezuelan regime at least had the capability at some level. Another release said China was printing industrial levels of fake IDs for voting schemes. The article even linked his actual answer: https://x.com/VaughnHillyard/status/2077940482869453085 "The intelligence community has zero evidence that a foreign power flipped a vote." Foreign interference is what he was talking about, didn't use the word "fraud" at all which usually means home-grown domestic fraud and is something you used to think was simply vanishingly small, not zero, so it's an interesting move to cite a guy thinking he's saying it doesn't even exist at all. If you nevertheless believe and want to stand behind the idea there is no proof of election fraud in the last three elections (even though it's not what he said), it's a respectable choice. It's a universal claim easily disproven by one counterexample. https://www.ktiv.com/2025/11/18/court-denies-appeal-kim-taylor-who-was-convicted-voter-fraud/ If you want to say you actually meant something reasonable like "widespread" or "enough to affect elections" or "no proof" was just vibes and not supposed to be taken literally, next time choose words with care. NJ had a redo election for a seat in 2020 due to fraud: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/20/politics/paterson-new-jersey-city-council-voter-fraud | ||
|
dyhb
United States673 Posts
On July 18 2026 02:09 LightSpectra wrote: The trouble with criminal conspiracy is there wasn't a convenient pile of cash that mysteriously appeared that Mueller could just discover and point at. It's a conspiracy. You're talking about agreements and knowledge and quid pro quo. Like if the foreign activists from UK Labour broke the law in their attempts to influence the US election towards Clinton or Kamala, I can't just analogize "Clinton and Kamala mysteriously saw cash appear." Or if they're worried about Trump political prosecutions "Clinton and Kamala are stonewalling investigation, definitely collusion." It's ... harder to do.If a bank got robbed, and the money mysteriously showed up in the house of one of the bank employees, and that same employee stonewalled any investigation into how the money ended up there, and that same employee is also vowing he will ensure nobody will ever stop the money from a future bank robbery from mysteriously appearing in his house, it's not a "witch hunt" to investigate how it got there. That's the point. There doesn't need to be a tape of Trump saying "Putin, I'm begging you, hack the election", the currently existing evidence is enough to establish willful collusion. As regards a "witch hunt," I've never called it that. So I'd like you to do some thinking and establish relevance. Do you think the smarter cadre of Trump voters or Republicans nonetheless call the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt?" Trump appointed Manafort his campaign advisor, a pretty known criminal with Russian connections, Flynn's dealt with Kislyak, Sessions recused himself over Kislyak ... there was certainly predicate for an investigation, so I personally think "witch hunt" goes too far. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3126 Posts
On July 18 2026 02:32 dyhb wrote: The trouble with criminal conspiracy is there wasn't a convenient pile of cash that mysteriously appeared that Mueller could just discover and point at. It's a conspiracy. There was a) an election with foreign interference, b) complete shameless lies about aforementioned interference that the Trump admin was providing from the 2016 election all the way to this present week, and c) stonewalling attempts to investigate & stop that interference from happening again in the future. Like if the foreign activists from UK Labour broke the law in their attempts to influence the US election towards Clinton or Kamala, I can't just analogize "Clinton and Kamala mysteriously saw cash appear." The reason there was nothing mysterious about that is because they didn't stonewall the investigation As regards a "witch hunt," I've never called it that. Just a reminder, this conversation started with me saying "Where all you dumb assholes who kept calling the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" at?", and there were at least two of those people in this very thread. Do you think the smarter cadre of Trump voters lmao | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11960 Posts
On July 18 2026 00:58 Billyboy wrote: Bold claim that there are smart ones. The actual smart ones know Trump would have accepted and asked for any help he could. They are just OK with the cheating to win attitude. I think it is once again time for the Gerhard Bronner quote. "There are three things, that can't be united: intelligence, decency and national socialism. One can be intelligent and nazi. Then one has no decency. One can be decent and nazi. Then one is not intelligent. And one can be decent and intelligent. Then one is no nazi." A similar thing can surely be said about MAGAs. You can be smart and MAGA, then you are one of the grifters. You can be MAGA and not a grifter, then you are not smart. And you can be smart and not a grifter. Then you are not MAGA. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3126 Posts
| ||
|
dyhb
United States673 Posts
On July 18 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote: That's why we have laws and investigations and burden of proof. You're telling me something that I'd present to voters and ask, "Do you want to vote this guy in for re-election?" The law recognizes that politicians lie, foreign governments interfere, and politicians have every right to assert their constitutional rights and departmental authority to do their job. And it's also there to protect Kamala and Clinton from being convicted for criminal conspiracy relating to foreign election interference, if Trump's DOJ tries to start that up again.There was a) an election with foreign interference, b) complete shameless lies about aforementioned interference that the Trump admin was providing from the 2016 election all the way to this present week, and c) stonewalling attempts to investigate & stop that interference from happening again in the future. You should know that I'm thinking of political prosecutions of Democrats and protections in law for the subject when I think weakening or disregarding stuff like burden of proof and rights. The reason there was nothing mysterious about that is because they didn't stonewall the investigation The mentioned two Democratic presidential candidates would have every right to say this is a malicious prosecution for political reasons and I'm going to force them to subpoena everything and obtain depositions. It doesn't smear them as guilty because foreign election interference + stonewalling investigations = guilty of criminal conspiracy. Just a reminder, this conversation started with me saying "Where all you dumb assholes who kept calling the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" at?", and there were at least two of those people in this very thread. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2874 Posts
On July 17 2026 23:10 Manit0u wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkA0bkb6ZO0 This is very interesting. China saving the world from all the Trump shenanigans. And it's actually quite crazy how they did it and the implications of it. They have a very large stockpile they fill when gas prices are low and use when oil is high. It's funny with all the talk of theoretical Chinese election interference. A side effect of them bailing out the global economy like this is that they have the GOPs balls in a vice when it comes to the midterms. If Iran isn't solved by then (lmao) and China resumes importing crude late August then gas prices will skyrocket perfectly in time for voting. | ||
| ||
