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 States2880 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17793 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
Spain18375 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 States2880 Posts
Where all you dumb assholes who kept calling the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" at? | ||
|
dyhb
United States515 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 States515 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
2020 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 States515 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. | ||
| ||
