|
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 July 24 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:Trump Tries to Change Terms of Saudi Nuclear Deal After It Was Signed: https://newrepublic.com/post/213431/white-house-cant-explain-trump-changing-terms-saudi-nuclear-deal"Trump demanded that Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel via the Abraham Accords before getting any U.S. nuclear technology. He also claimed “there will be no enrichment of material,” though the deal certainly opens the door to uranium enrichment in the country." As far as I can tell there's still no mechanism in place whatsoever to prevent enrichment for nuclear weapons.
That deal lasted less than one day before Trump reneged - "just hours after it was signed", according to the article. Sigh.
|
On July 24 2026 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:Trump Tries to Change Terms of Saudi Nuclear Deal After It Was Signed: https://newrepublic.com/post/213431/white-house-cant-explain-trump-changing-terms-saudi-nuclear-deal"Trump demanded that Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel via the Abraham Accords before getting any U.S. nuclear technology. He also claimed “there will be no enrichment of material,” though the deal certainly opens the door to uranium enrichment in the country." As far as I can tell there's still no mechanism in place whatsoever to prevent enrichment for nuclear weapons. That deal lasted less than one day before Trump reneged - "just hours after it was signed", according to the article. Sigh.
It is so funny and silly. Deals with Trump are really worth less than toilet paper.
|
The "Iran's leadership are all fanatical Muslims, they have no qualms at all about starting a nuclear war because they look forward to receiving 72 virgins in Jannah"* crowd don't seem to have any strong feelings about the possibility of the Saudis getting nukes.
(*which isn't accurate because this claim comes from a Sunni [i.e. like the Saudis] hadith and Iran is Shi'ite, not that it matters)
|
United States24805 Posts
Trump is the Darth Vader of deals except also highly incompetent.
|
But have you taken into account how much money the saudis have paid Kushner? Who cares what the national security advisers are saying, let’s listen to the presidents son I law, with no role in the government who has been paid 100m and had 2bn invested with him.
Just blatant corruption, but in republicans defence harris did laugh awkwardly.
|
On July 23 2026 23:24 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2026 08:59 Introvert wrote:On July 23 2026 08:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 07:56 Introvert wrote:On July 23 2026 04:06 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 03:28 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2026 23:15 Billyboy wrote:On July 22 2026 13:05 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2026 11:35 Billyboy wrote:On July 22 2026 10:38 Introvert wrote:[quote] I didn't say the teachers are communists. I said many union leaders are lefties with sympathies for Cuba. We'd be totally screwed if the average teacher was like the union leaders. Remember when, during COVID for example, the head the LA teachers union said that learning loss wasn't real, that it was OK that the students didn't know time tables because they knew oppression and "coup"? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. or things like this https://x.com/CTULocal1/status/1971749649951142009?lang=enAre we actually going to pretend teachers unions are led by normal center left liberals? [quote] Same as the usual BS they all say, praising its education and healthcare system. Edit: btw it's often framed as supporting Cuban union members or calling on the US to lift restrictions. Harder to find out and out praise for the Cuban regime as time has gone on. Fewer people gushing over the Castros. But there's no reason for a US union to take a position on a topic like that. Nevermind how, since so much over there is government run, it's not like you are finding actual free assocations of workers instead of state associations. Saying something is good in another system with way lower reasources doesn’t make you a communist, it makes you able to look at things without bias. Certificate strange to call people who are likely not nearly as close to communism communist when you get so pissed at trump being called a fascist when he hits almost all the main features. Out of curiosity you have always bristled at being called far right. What positions are right of yours? Feel free to pick abortion, or taxation, or whatever floats your boat. I purposely have not used the word communist because I know when anyone does it leads to exactly what you are doing, which is arguing about the word more than anything else. I'm not interested in this odd aside but I am a big fan of the American revolution and as an American conservative that's the thing I'm trying to conserve and adapt. Dancing around the word doesn’t make the accusation any different. American conservatives are far right for the most part at this moment (including yourself). What I don’t understand is why your are embarrassed of that, but not of the belief itself? It’s not like GH is offended when he is called far left. I am trying to figure out what you are on about. Arguing about words while simultaneously telling me it doesn't matter because reasons. My one sentence opinion is that if you put me in the "far right" box then you havw made the box too big. I mean I asked you to name some positions right of yours and dodged hard and fast. It should be easy for someone on the center right to do. I’m saying you calling people communist or saying they are communist without saying the word communist is no different. It is clear this is what you believe and it is a ridiculous take. Everyone left of you is not a communist, basically everyone that is not “an American conservative “ is left of you. The weird part is how you don’t own it and try to claim to be some sort of centerist with no positions right of yours. If you were at all centerist there would be a whole bunch right of yours. I'm not answering because it's a weird digression. I didn't say everyone to the left of me is a communist. Are you upset I said "left" and not "far left?" If you would like to collapse all criticism of, say, teachers unions leaders into criticism of the left, center included....be my guest if you want but it's probably a bad idea. Rather than pushing back it's just going to tar everyone. There are people to "the right" of me but thankfully I don't actually believe America is on the cusp of a fascist tyranny because I think they are a way smaller segment of the population than "the left" would try to have us believe. I do not think it’s weird, I think it is why you think people are so out there. I also think it’s a painfully easy question for someone who’s not far right. And as mentioned, I don’t get why so many people with far right views bristle at being called far right. Where are you even getting this scale from? Where on the axis/horseshoe do you put the two examples I gave? I've been posting my views here for years, you asking for a list smells fishy. Like in the past year I've been pro-Ukraine, and pro-bombing Iran. Pro-life, bur trying to make it durable by taking it slow and getting buy in. Pro-immigration enforcement but professionally done, nor whatever Noem seems to have been doing. Anti-tarriffs while expressing deep disdain for many NATO members. Anti-government buying stakes in corporations but recognizing legitimate defense needs. Hater of almost all unions. Teachers and labor unions, yes, but also police and firefighter unions. Restraining government spending not by something ludicrous like "cutting waste" and foreign aid but by making reforms that allow us to outgrow our debt. Acknowledging Trump is a bad person a million times while not agreeing he was worse than the alternatives in any of the 3 elections he's run in. I've said now multiple times Biden won in 2020 but that things like voter ID are good and 6 weeks of early voting and tsking 3 weeks to count are bad. That was way more than you should have got but I say it to demonstrate that the point you are trying to make is not a very good one. Those are all right views, but not the populist Trump views. And there is an ocean between you and “communists”. There are plenty of center right people that are teachers, most police and fire fighters are on the right. The problem is you are starting to go down the rabbit hole and I hope you manage to stay out. There is no mass indoctrination happening at schools. And the other grand conspiracy’s are just as BS. In the states it’s your team that is taking away the freedoms and increasing the corruption. It is your team that needs to drain the swamp from your own party. Then you can get back to judging the other side. The YouTuber I watch the most on Ukraine is a Republican, American conservative, he offer talks about how his party has lost its way. But he also is still going to vote red no matter what. The whole way that Americans treat US politics like team sports is strange. Like your actual politics are probably closer to Bidens than Trumps and your country would still be the world leader instead of a mix between hated and laughed at. Like you are basically describing what Obama did with immigration ffs. I find it so frustrating that so many people like you picked this absolute moron like Trump and justified by pretending like the whole Democratic Party was left of AOC, when the reality is she was a blip, that your party is amplifying, and the actual party was center right. We could have been done with the stupidity before it started, but at least not experienced 2.0 even way dumber than before and way more corrupt. And if Don jr is the nominee next you are going to just hold your nose and vote for him again, because he wears your jersey.
it just isn't true that, say, Obama is closer to my positions than the GOP. Take immigration. Interior removals went down under Obama iirc and he unconstitutionally gave legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. Sorry, but no.
Biden, well I shouldn't have to re-run that list. Biden was no conservative. Moreover, the Dems have a problem in that they are scared to fight their left too often. I again go back to the example of Seth Moulton who said he didn't want his daughters playing against biological men and got pummeled so hard he hard to reverse course. I did try to make a similar point in 2024 though, if Dems wanted to pick up people in the center they could have, you know, run to the center. But it's hard to think of a single issue that Dems haven't moved to the left on since 2008, or even 2016.
On July 24 2026 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2026 08:59 Introvert wrote:On July 23 2026 08:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 07:56 Introvert wrote:On July 23 2026 04:06 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 03:28 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2026 23:15 Billyboy wrote:On July 22 2026 13:05 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2026 11:35 Billyboy wrote:On July 22 2026 10:38 Introvert wrote:[quote] I didn't say the teachers are communists. I said many union leaders are lefties with sympathies for Cuba. We'd be totally screwed if the average teacher was like the union leaders. Remember when, during COVID for example, the head the LA teachers union said that learning loss wasn't real, that it was OK that the students didn't know time tables because they knew oppression and "coup"? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. or things like this https://x.com/CTULocal1/status/1971749649951142009?lang=enAre we actually going to pretend teachers unions are led by normal center left liberals? [quote] Same as the usual BS they all say, praising its education and healthcare system. Edit: btw it's often framed as supporting Cuban union members or calling on the US to lift restrictions. Harder to find out and out praise for the Cuban regime as time has gone on. Fewer people gushing over the Castros. But there's no reason for a US union to take a position on a topic like that. Nevermind how, since so much over there is government run, it's not like you are finding actual free assocations of workers instead of state associations. Saying something is good in another system with way lower reasources doesn’t make you a communist, it makes you able to look at things without bias. Certificate strange to call people who are likely not nearly as close to communism communist when you get so pissed at trump being called a fascist when he hits almost all the main features. Out of curiosity you have always bristled at being called far right. What positions are right of yours? Feel free to pick abortion, or taxation, or whatever floats your boat. I purposely have not used the word communist because I know when anyone does it leads to exactly what you are doing, which is arguing about the word more than anything else. I'm not interested in this odd aside but I am a big fan of the American revolution and as an American conservative that's the thing I'm trying to conserve and adapt. Dancing around the word doesn’t make the accusation any different. American conservatives are far right for the most part at this moment (including yourself). What I don’t understand is why your are embarrassed of that, but not of the belief itself? It’s not like GH is offended when he is called far left. I am trying to figure out what you are on about. Arguing about words while simultaneously telling me it doesn't matter because reasons. My one sentence opinion is that if you put me in the "far right" box then you havw made the box too big. I mean I asked you to name some positions right of yours and dodged hard and fast. It should be easy for someone on the center right to do. I’m saying you calling people communist or saying they are communist without saying the word communist is no different. It is clear this is what you believe and it is a ridiculous take. Everyone left of you is not a communist, basically everyone that is not “an American conservative “ is left of you. The weird part is how you don’t own it and try to claim to be some sort of centerist with no positions right of yours. If you were at all centerist there would be a whole bunch right of yours. I'm not answering because it's a weird digression. I didn't say everyone to the left of me is a communist. Are you upset I said "left" and not "far left?" If you would like to collapse all criticism of, say, teachers unions leaders into criticism of the left, center included....be my guest if you want but it's probably a bad idea. Rather than pushing back it's just going to tar everyone. There are people to "the right" of me but thankfully I don't actually believe America is on the cusp of a fascist tyranny because I think they are a way smaller segment of the population than "the left" would try to have us believe. I do not think it’s weird, I think it is why you think people are so out there. I also think it’s a painfully easy question for someone who’s not far right. And as mentioned, I don’t get why so many people with far right views bristle at being called far right. Where are you even getting this scale from? Where on the axis/horseshoe do you put the two examples I gave? I've been posting my views here for years, you asking for a list smells fishy. Like in the past year I've been pro-Ukraine, and pro-bombing Iran. Pro-life, bur trying to make it durable by taking it slow and getting buy in. Pro-immigration enforcement but professionally done, nor whatever Noem seems to have been doing. Anti-tarriffs while expressing deep disdain for many NATO members. Anti-government buying stakes in corporations but recognizing legitimate defense needs. Hater of almost all unions. Teachers and labor unions, yes, but also police and firefighter unions. Restraining government spending not by something ludicrous like "cutting waste" and foreign aid but by making reforms that allow us to outgrow our debt. Acknowledging Trump is a bad person a million times while not agreeing he was worse than the alternatives in any of the 3 elections he's run in. I've said now multiple times Biden won in 2020 but that things like voter ID are good and 6 weeks of early voting and tsking 3 weeks to count are bad. That was way more than you should have got but I say it to demonstrate that the point you are trying to make is not a very good one. I have a few questions about your position on unions. Do you think even the idea / principle of unions is bad / that they're inherently flawed, or do you think it's just their execution / what they do in practice that you have an issue with? Could a union be good / valuable in your eyes? What would an ideal union look like, to you?
Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
|
On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2026 23:24 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 08:59 Introvert wrote:On July 23 2026 08:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 07:56 Introvert wrote:On July 23 2026 04:06 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 03:28 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2026 23:15 Billyboy wrote:On July 22 2026 13:05 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2026 11:35 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Saying something is good in another system with way lower reasources doesn’t make you a communist, it makes you able to look at things without bias. Certificate strange to call people who are likely not nearly as close to communism communist when you get so pissed at trump being called a fascist when he hits almost all the main features.
Out of curiosity you have always bristled at being called far right. What positions are right of yours? Feel free to pick abortion, or taxation, or whatever floats your boat.
I purposely have not used the word communist because I know when anyone does it leads to exactly what you are doing, which is arguing about the word more than anything else. I'm not interested in this odd aside but I am a big fan of the American revolution and as an American conservative that's the thing I'm trying to conserve and adapt. Dancing around the word doesn’t make the accusation any different. American conservatives are far right for the most part at this moment (including yourself). What I don’t understand is why your are embarrassed of that, but not of the belief itself? It’s not like GH is offended when he is called far left. I am trying to figure out what you are on about. Arguing about words while simultaneously telling me it doesn't matter because reasons. My one sentence opinion is that if you put me in the "far right" box then you havw made the box too big. I mean I asked you to name some positions right of yours and dodged hard and fast. It should be easy for someone on the center right to do. I’m saying you calling people communist or saying they are communist without saying the word communist is no different. It is clear this is what you believe and it is a ridiculous take. Everyone left of you is not a communist, basically everyone that is not “an American conservative “ is left of you. The weird part is how you don’t own it and try to claim to be some sort of centerist with no positions right of yours. If you were at all centerist there would be a whole bunch right of yours. I'm not answering because it's a weird digression. I didn't say everyone to the left of me is a communist. Are you upset I said "left" and not "far left?" If you would like to collapse all criticism of, say, teachers unions leaders into criticism of the left, center included....be my guest if you want but it's probably a bad idea. Rather than pushing back it's just going to tar everyone. There are people to "the right" of me but thankfully I don't actually believe America is on the cusp of a fascist tyranny because I think they are a way smaller segment of the population than "the left" would try to have us believe. I do not think it’s weird, I think it is why you think people are so out there. I also think it’s a painfully easy question for someone who’s not far right. And as mentioned, I don’t get why so many people with far right views bristle at being called far right. Where are you even getting this scale from? Where on the axis/horseshoe do you put the two examples I gave? I've been posting my views here for years, you asking for a list smells fishy. Like in the past year I've been pro-Ukraine, and pro-bombing Iran. Pro-life, bur trying to make it durable by taking it slow and getting buy in. Pro-immigration enforcement but professionally done, nor whatever Noem seems to have been doing. Anti-tarriffs while expressing deep disdain for many NATO members. Anti-government buying stakes in corporations but recognizing legitimate defense needs. Hater of almost all unions. Teachers and labor unions, yes, but also police and firefighter unions. Restraining government spending not by something ludicrous like "cutting waste" and foreign aid but by making reforms that allow us to outgrow our debt. Acknowledging Trump is a bad person a million times while not agreeing he was worse than the alternatives in any of the 3 elections he's run in. I've said now multiple times Biden won in 2020 but that things like voter ID are good and 6 weeks of early voting and tsking 3 weeks to count are bad. That was way more than you should have got but I say it to demonstrate that the point you are trying to make is not a very good one. Those are all right views, but not the populist Trump views. And there is an ocean between you and “communists”. There are plenty of center right people that are teachers, most police and fire fighters are on the right. The problem is you are starting to go down the rabbit hole and I hope you manage to stay out. There is no mass indoctrination happening at schools. And the other grand conspiracy’s are just as BS. In the states it’s your team that is taking away the freedoms and increasing the corruption. It is your team that needs to drain the swamp from your own party. Then you can get back to judging the other side. The YouTuber I watch the most on Ukraine is a Republican, American conservative, he offer talks about how his party has lost its way. But he also is still going to vote red no matter what. The whole way that Americans treat US politics like team sports is strange. Like your actual politics are probably closer to Bidens than Trumps and your country would still be the world leader instead of a mix between hated and laughed at. Like you are basically describing what Obama did with immigration ffs. I find it so frustrating that so many people like you picked this absolute moron like Trump and justified by pretending like the whole Democratic Party was left of AOC, when the reality is she was a blip, that your party is amplifying, and the actual party was center right. We could have been done with the stupidity before it started, but at least not experienced 2.0 even way dumber than before and way more corrupt. And if Don jr is the nominee next you are going to just hold your nose and vote for him again, because he wears your jersey. it just isn't true that, say, Obama is closer to my positions than the GOP. Take immigration. Interior removals went down under Obama iirc and he unconstitutionally gave legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. Sorry, but no. Biden, well I shouldn't have to re-run that list. Biden was no conservative. Moreover, the Dems have a problem in that they are scared to fight their left too often. I again go back to the example of Seth Moulton who said he didn't want his daughters playing against biological men and got pummeled so hard he hard to reverse course. I did try to make a similar point in 2024 though, if Dems wanted to pick up people in the center they could have, you know, run to the center. But it's hard to think of a single issue that Dems haven't moved to the left on since 2008, or even 2016. Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 23 2026 08:59 Introvert wrote:On July 23 2026 08:05 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 07:56 Introvert wrote:On July 23 2026 04:06 Billyboy wrote:On July 23 2026 03:28 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2026 23:15 Billyboy wrote:On July 22 2026 13:05 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2026 11:35 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Saying something is good in another system with way lower reasources doesn’t make you a communist, it makes you able to look at things without bias. Certificate strange to call people who are likely not nearly as close to communism communist when you get so pissed at trump being called a fascist when he hits almost all the main features.
Out of curiosity you have always bristled at being called far right. What positions are right of yours? Feel free to pick abortion, or taxation, or whatever floats your boat.
I purposely have not used the word communist because I know when anyone does it leads to exactly what you are doing, which is arguing about the word more than anything else. I'm not interested in this odd aside but I am a big fan of the American revolution and as an American conservative that's the thing I'm trying to conserve and adapt. Dancing around the word doesn’t make the accusation any different. American conservatives are far right for the most part at this moment (including yourself). What I don’t understand is why your are embarrassed of that, but not of the belief itself? It’s not like GH is offended when he is called far left. I am trying to figure out what you are on about. Arguing about words while simultaneously telling me it doesn't matter because reasons. My one sentence opinion is that if you put me in the "far right" box then you havw made the box too big. I mean I asked you to name some positions right of yours and dodged hard and fast. It should be easy for someone on the center right to do. I’m saying you calling people communist or saying they are communist without saying the word communist is no different. It is clear this is what you believe and it is a ridiculous take. Everyone left of you is not a communist, basically everyone that is not “an American conservative “ is left of you. The weird part is how you don’t own it and try to claim to be some sort of centerist with no positions right of yours. If you were at all centerist there would be a whole bunch right of yours. I'm not answering because it's a weird digression. I didn't say everyone to the left of me is a communist. Are you upset I said "left" and not "far left?" If you would like to collapse all criticism of, say, teachers unions leaders into criticism of the left, center included....be my guest if you want but it's probably a bad idea. Rather than pushing back it's just going to tar everyone. There are people to "the right" of me but thankfully I don't actually believe America is on the cusp of a fascist tyranny because I think they are a way smaller segment of the population than "the left" would try to have us believe. I do not think it’s weird, I think it is why you think people are so out there. I also think it’s a painfully easy question for someone who’s not far right. And as mentioned, I don’t get why so many people with far right views bristle at being called far right. Where are you even getting this scale from? Where on the axis/horseshoe do you put the two examples I gave? I've been posting my views here for years, you asking for a list smells fishy. Like in the past year I've been pro-Ukraine, and pro-bombing Iran. Pro-life, bur trying to make it durable by taking it slow and getting buy in. Pro-immigration enforcement but professionally done, nor whatever Noem seems to have been doing. Anti-tarriffs while expressing deep disdain for many NATO members. Anti-government buying stakes in corporations but recognizing legitimate defense needs. Hater of almost all unions. Teachers and labor unions, yes, but also police and firefighter unions. Restraining government spending not by something ludicrous like "cutting waste" and foreign aid but by making reforms that allow us to outgrow our debt. Acknowledging Trump is a bad person a million times while not agreeing he was worse than the alternatives in any of the 3 elections he's run in. I've said now multiple times Biden won in 2020 but that things like voter ID are good and 6 weeks of early voting and tsking 3 weeks to count are bad. That was way more than you should have got but I say it to demonstrate that the point you are trying to make is not a very good one. I have a few questions about your position on unions. Do you think even the idea / principle of unions is bad / that they're inherently flawed, or do you think it's just their execution / what they do in practice that you have an issue with? Could a union be good / valuable in your eyes? What would an ideal union look like, to you? Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
Of course you can find shit you don’t like, but you have at least as long a list with Trump, plus open corruption and a loss of world influence.
If people like you would actually swap there vote than the GOP would need to react to you instead of the anti-Regan’s every nutty whim.
|
Biden, run to the center!
Kamala, run to the center!
Mamdani, run to the center!
Obama, run to the center!
AOC, run to the center!
Whatever the fuck you do, do not stand next to other people!
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1361 Posts
On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
That is correct, you probably won't find many if any unions that says their members don't need more money, benefits, early retirement etc. Because that's the job of a union: to leverage collective power of workers to further the material interests of the workers. If a union is doing otherwise, then something has gone horribly wrong.
The understanding is that the system is designed to be adversarial, and that employers will naturally advocate for their own financial interests and is in a position of greater power/leverage than any individual worker. Unions are the weight on the other end of the scale to directly advocate for worker's interests OVER the employer's.
This is fundamentally the same system as the courts. Your lawyer is supposed to argue your case even if they know you are in the wrong, if your lawyer is arguing against your interests then something has gone horribly wrong (and is also malpractice).
Civic virtue is irrelevant; that's not the union's place to worry about the employer's interest (outside of calculating what they can get away with demanding), even if that employer is the government/taxpayer. In exceptional circumstances, unions will work with employers through hardship (as I believe had happened in Germany during economic downturns), however this is done in the interests of the employees, eg because it was in the worker's interests for these organisations not to go bankrupt/close down.
If employers are not using their own leverage properly to advocate for their interests, that's on them. The fundamental power of the union is still that all the workers in the union can go on strike/quit, the employer's leverage is they can hire other people. It's hardly the union's fault that they are doing their job correctly. I understand it is disruptive to say no to union demands by basically saying 'We will hire different people then'. But that is supposed to be the final resort to demands of the workers you cannot meet, if you are unable to do this, either because the disruption is too... disruptive/costly or you literally cannot find replacements, then the workers/union has you over a barrel, this is how leverage works.
I also don't think many people are going to seriously argue that teachers are overpaid. They are not the reason that the education systems they work in are broke. It doesn't stop being the teacher union's job to advocate for the material interests of the teachers just because the education system is underfunded/poorly organised.
The solution to the teacher union demanding more when their system is broke, is not to demand less. It's that the system should be not broke.
|
On July 24 2026 13:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
That is correct, you probably won't find many if any unions that says their members don't need more money, benefits, early retirement etc. Because that's the job of a union: to leverage collective power of workers to further the material interests of the workers. If a union is doing otherwise, then something has gone horribly wrong. The understanding is that the system is designed to be adversarial, and that employers will naturally advocate for their own financial interests and is in a position of greater power/leverage than any individual worker. Unions are the weight on the other end of the scale to directly advocate for worker's interests OVER the employer's. This is fundamentally the same system as the courts. Your lawyer is supposed to argue your case even if they know you are in the wrong, if your lawyer is arguing against your interests then something has gone horribly wrong (and is also malpractice). Civic virtue is irrelevant; that's not the union's place to worry about the employer's interest (outside of calculating what they can get away with demanding), even if that employer is the government/taxpayer. In exceptional circumstances, unions will work with employers through hardship (as I believe had happened in Germany during economic downturns), however this is done in the interests of the employees, eg because it was in the worker's interests for these organisations not to go bankrupt/close down. If employers are not using their own leverage properly to advocate for their interests, that's on them. The fundamental power of the union is still that all the workers in the union can go on strike/quit, the employer's leverage is they can hire other people. It's hardly the union's fault that they are doing their job correctly. I also don't think many people are going to seriously argue that teachers are overpaid. They are not the reason that the education systems they work in are broke. It doesn't stop being the teacher union's job to advocate for the material interests of the teachers just because the education system is underfunded/poorly organised. The solution to the teacher union demanding more when their system is broke, is not to demand less. It's that the system should be not broke.
Yes, I am aware of the theory behind unions. What you described is mostly applicable to private sector unions, which as I said, can be organized under bad laws and good laws. Public sector unions negotiate most often against the people they help elect, at least here in CA. Or in Chicago where was mayor was a member of the teacher's union. And in LA, the system is broke partially because there are not nearly as many students, partially because they do pay so much in retirement and benefits, and also because of mismanagement. Despite this, the workers used their bargaining power to get the district to spend money it does not have. Now, the county is threatening to take over. As I said, there is no sense of virtue, humility, or propriety among them.The logic of "well it's their job to maximize shareholder value 'further the material interests of the workers'" is not something that many on the left would consider an acceptable answer in any other context. If the unions are a detriment to the citizens who pay their salaries then they need to be contained. I see no reason to think that we should be less skeptical of a union, espeically a government one, than a corporation.
|
United States24805 Posts
On July 24 2026 13:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
That is correct, you probably won't find many if any unions that says their members don't need more money, benefits, early retirement etc. Because that's the job of a union: to leverage collective power of workers to further the material interests of the workers. If a union is doing otherwise, then something has gone horribly wrong.
I think this is usually true but also an oversimplification. If employees are well paid, and forcing the company's hand to pay more means the company will start losing money, it's not necessarily in the interest of the employees or the union to keep arguing for more pay. Why demand more pay if it will lead to tremendous layoffs in a few months?
Realistically, the needle is probably usually at the other end, though, where more pay would mean cutting into profits for the owners.
|
On July 24 2026 13:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
That is correct, you probably won't find many if any unions that says their members don't need more money, benefits, early retirement etc. Because that's the job of a union: to leverage collective power of workers to further the material interests of the workers. If a union is doing otherwise, then something has gone horribly wrong. The understanding is that the system is designed to be adversarial, and that employers will naturally advocate for their own financial interests and is in a position of greater power/leverage than any individual worker. Unions are the weight on the other end of the scale to directly advocate for worker's interests OVER the employer's. This is fundamentally the same system as the courts. Your lawyer is supposed to argue your case even if they know you are in the wrong, if your lawyer is arguing against your interests then something has gone horribly wrong (and is also malpractice). Civic virtue is irrelevant; that's not the union's place to worry about the employer's interest (outside of calculating what they can get away with demanding), even if that employer is the government/taxpayer. In exceptional circumstances, unions will work with employers through hardship (as I believe had happened in Germany during economic downturns), however this is done in the interests of the employees, eg because it was in the worker's interests for these organisations not to go bankrupt/close down. If employers are not using their own leverage properly to advocate for their interests, that's on them. The fundamental power of the union is still that all the workers in the union can go on strike/quit, the employer's leverage is they can hire other people. It's hardly the union's fault that they are doing their job correctly. I also don't think many people are going to seriously argue that teachers are overpaid. They are not the reason that the education systems they work in are broke. It doesn't stop being the teacher union's job to advocate for the material interests of the teachers just because the education system is underfunded/poorly organised. The solution to the teacher union demanding more when their system is broke, is not to demand less. It's that the system should be not broke.
And sadly, in that adversarial system employers have figured out that the best way to leverage their power is to make sure that unions don't form, so the employees don't have any way to use their collective power. And they have become very good at that in the US.
To go with your court analogy, in the US one side has figured out that the best way to get the best results it to make sure that the other side does not get a lawyer through whatever means possible.
|
Even more tariffs! With an even worse excuse.
Tariffs.
Debt.
War.
Great choice America!
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1361 Posts
On July 24 2026 13:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 13:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
That is correct, you probably won't find many if any unions that says their members don't need more money, benefits, early retirement etc. Because that's the job of a union: to leverage collective power of workers to further the material interests of the workers. If a union is doing otherwise, then something has gone horribly wrong. The understanding is that the system is designed to be adversarial, and that employers will naturally advocate for their own financial interests and is in a position of greater power/leverage than any individual worker. Unions are the weight on the other end of the scale to directly advocate for worker's interests OVER the employer's. This is fundamentally the same system as the courts. Your lawyer is supposed to argue your case even if they know you are in the wrong, if your lawyer is arguing against your interests then something has gone horribly wrong (and is also malpractice). Civic virtue is irrelevant; that's not the union's place to worry about the employer's interest (outside of calculating what they can get away with demanding), even if that employer is the government/taxpayer. In exceptional circumstances, unions will work with employers through hardship (as I believe had happened in Germany during economic downturns), however this is done in the interests of the employees, eg because it was in the worker's interests for these organisations not to go bankrupt/close down. If employers are not using their own leverage properly to advocate for their interests, that's on them. The fundamental power of the union is still that all the workers in the union can go on strike/quit, the employer's leverage is they can hire other people. It's hardly the union's fault that they are doing their job correctly. I also don't think many people are going to seriously argue that teachers are overpaid. They are not the reason that the education systems they work in are broke. It doesn't stop being the teacher union's job to advocate for the material interests of the teachers just because the education system is underfunded/poorly organised. The solution to the teacher union demanding more when their system is broke, is not to demand less. It's that the system should be not broke. Yes, I am aware of the theory behind unions. What you described is mostly applicable to private sector unions, which as I said, can be organized under bad laws and good laws. Public sector unions negotiate most often against the people they help elect, at least here in CA. Or in Chicago where was mayor was a member of the teacher's union. And in LA, the system is broke partially because there are not nearly as many students, partially because they do pay so much in retirement and benefits, and also because of mismanagement. Despite this, the workers used their bargaining power to get the district to spend money it does not have. Now, the county is threatening to take over. As I said, there is no sense of virtue, humility, or propriety among them.
The fundamental power, again, of the unions, are that the workers can go on strike/quit. If the union were working against the workers' interests then the workers themselves don't have to actually go on strike, whatever the unions decide would immediately have no legs. My understanding is that teachers in parts of California that did strike, overwhelmingly voted to do so, the union is merely the organisational body through which they have done this.
I don't know how well Californian teachers are paid, maybe they are being unrealistic, I don't know. Though my understanding throughout the US is that teachers are generally a poorly paid profession for it's occupational requirements of expertise/work. I would guess that Californian teachers are actually also a poorly paid profession compared to other professionals in their area (I understand pay and cost of living is higher in California), but if they are indeed overpaid, I haven't the prerequisite familiarity to disagree. But your problem seems to stem from the workers themselves making unrealistic demands than anything else.
Given that the actual workers in question appear overwhelmingly in favour of these strikes (97.6% authorization vote for the San Francisco walkout according to google search), I don't see how it could be the union's fault that the teacher's are demanding more pay. Maybe the teachers have unrealistic demands, the union is just doing it's job.
On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
The logic of "well it's their job to maximize shareholder value 'further the material interests of the workers'" is not something that many on the left would consider an acceptable answer in any other context. If the unions are a detriment to the citizens who pay their salaries then they need to be contained. I see no reason to think that we should be less skeptical of a union, espeically a government one, than a corporation.
Depends on which leftists you speak to, they are not a monolith.
I would consider myself vaguely leftist (for where I am anyway, in the context of the US I'd be pretty far left). I am being exactly as skeptical of unions as I am of corporations. In that I don't have a problem with the existence or purpose of either unions or corporations. They aren't really that different. Both exist to serve the material interests of its 'shareholders'.
I'm not against the existence of corporations, that economic power that it leverages exists whether or not corporations exist. "maximize shareholder value" is neither good nor bad, it's just a description of how the corporation would likely act. While I don't like with how profit gets distributed between 'ownership' and 'work'. I don't think corporations are the problem. It's an organisation leveraging a underlying power dynamic that already exists.
Likewise with unions, "further material interests of workers" is neither good nor bad, it's pretty much just a description of what a union does. I am likewise not against unions, because it is leveraging an underlying power that already exists.
While in the context of our societies, I would like for profits to be more distributed to 'work' over 'ownership', which generally conforms more with what unions do than corporations, this doesn't make unions fundamentally better than corporations in my mind. "Further the material interests of/maximise shareholder value" aren't really propositions you need to be agreeing or disagreeing with, they are just descriptions of what these organisations will do.
Some do these badly, like unions who over-ask and all it's members lose their jobs, or corporations who end up losing their owners money. Some are corrupt, embezzlement by the leadership in both cases can exist. But fundamentally they are just expressions of an underlying leverage that already exists.
Sometimes the material interest of these shareholders run contrary to 'the public good'. But I don't think these are really arguments against the organisations existing, these seem to be more of an issue of people pursuing their personal material interests over whatever the public good happens to be, which is always a difficult line to draw.
It seems like you have more issue with particular people (yes, as a collective) pursuing their own personal interests above the public good, rather than the actual mechanism through which that collective power is expressed, eg a union, or a corporation, or a voting block.
In this case, being against even public sector unions because public servants can ask for too much is like being against defense lawyers because rich criminals can hire really good defense lawyers to get away with crime. It sucks that they have this power, but it's not the lawyer's fault.
To say you are against unions for public servants because a teacher union with overwhelming support is asking for (maybe unrealistic) higher pay, is saying you are against public school teachers having the ability to organize their collective leverage. It's a strange choice over just, maybe those teachers shouldn't be asking for more pay.
Going back to:
I see no reason to think that we should be less skeptical of a union, espeically a government one, than a corporation.
Are you also against corporations? In fact, lets narrow it down, are you against any corporations that receive government contracts? If not, then you are in fact more skeptical of unions than corporations.
|
On July 24 2026 05:06 KT_Elwood wrote:
Trump allows sponsors of 9/11 to run a nuclear programme that will include their own enrichment facilities (because he explicitly said they would buy fuel rods and don't have their own centrifuges).
If he ups his insurance of Trump Tower, I guess he really dislikes Mamdani!
Saudi Arabia did not sponsor 9/11. They are a US ally we buy oil from and sell arms to. There's no reason for them not to have nuclear power. The whole world should have nuclear power.
You need centrifuges to enrich so if you're buying fuel rods it's just the opposite of enriching. Your sentence disagrees with itself. Source whatever he "explicitly said" to alleviate this.
On July 24 2026 06:13 LightSpectra wrote:
The "Iran's leadership are all fanatical Muslims, they have no qualms at all about starting a nuclear war because they look forward to receiving 72 virgins in Jannah"* crowd don't seem to have any strong feelings about the possibility of the Saudis getting nukes.
(*which isn't accurate because this claim comes from a Sunni [i.e. like the Saudis] hadith and Iran is Shi'ite, not that it matters)
Iran could have also had civilian nuclear power including free fuel, but they didn't go for that. Instead, they signed a MOU and ceasefire and then broke it making everything that follows unequivocally their fault.
|
On July 24 2026 21:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 05:06 KT_Elwood wrote:
Trump allows sponsors of 9/11 to run a nuclear programme that will include their own enrichment facilities (because he explicitly said they would buy fuel rods and don't have their own centrifuges).
If he ups his insurance of Trump Tower, I guess he really dislikes Mamdani!
Saudi Arabia did not sponsor 9/11. They are a US ally we buy oil from and sell arms to. There's no reason for them not to have nuclear power. The whole world should have nuclear power. You need centrifuges to enrich so if you're buying fuel rods it's just the opposite of enriching. Your sentence disagrees with itself. Source whatever he "explicitly said" to alleviate this. Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 06:13 LightSpectra wrote:
The "Iran's leadership are all fanatical Muslims, they have no qualms at all about starting a nuclear war because they look forward to receiving 72 virgins in Jannah"* crowd don't seem to have any strong feelings about the possibility of the Saudis getting nukes.
(*which isn't accurate because this claim comes from a Sunni [i.e. like the Saudis] hadith and Iran is Shi'ite, not that it matters) Iran could have also had civilian nuclear power including free fuel, but they didn't go for that. Instead, they signed a MOU and ceasefire and then broke it making everything that follows unequivocally their fault.
Who won the 2020 elections?
|
"Iran could have also had civilian nuclear power including free fuel, but they didn't go for that. Instead, they signed a MOU and ceasefire and then broke it making everything that follows unequivocally their fault."
Donnie ripped that deal up during his first term you absolute fucking tool.
|
On July 24 2026 13:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2026 09:21 Introvert wrote:
Laws governing unions can be better or worse. In particular I have a problem with public sector unions that negotiate with the politicians against the tax payers. You will never, ever find a union that says their members don't need more money, benefits, earlier retirement, etc. Like so many things, my particular focus on this comes from watching what has happened in California. I appreciate the cops and firefighters but retiring in your 50s for something like 90% of your final salary + benefits is insane, espeically when the system wasn't well structured in the first place. And guess what? This year because CALPERs got a bigger return than they anticipated (thanks AI boom!), all of a sudden the unions are back even though the program is still in the hole long term. Teacher's unions also demand more when the system is broke, it's coming to a head in LA right now. They are the biggest interest groups in the entire state. Private sector unions have had their place, they were born out of terrible circumstances we would never tolerate today. But they have no sense of civic virtue, either. Seemingly both public and private have this problem.
That is correct, you probably won't find many if any unions that says their members don't need more money, benefits, early retirement etc. Because that's the job of a union: to leverage collective power of workers to further the material interests of the workers. If a union is doing otherwise, then something has gone horribly wrong. The understanding is that the system is designed to be adversarial, and that employers will naturally advocate for their own financial interests and is in a position of greater power/leverage than any individual worker. Unions are the weight on the other end of the scale to directly advocate for worker's interests OVER the employer's. This is fundamentally the same system as the courts. Your lawyer is supposed to argue your case even if they know you are in the wrong, if your lawyer is arguing against your interests then something has gone horribly wrong (and is also malpractice). Civic virtue is irrelevant; that's not the union's place to worry about the employer's interest (outside of calculating what they can get away with demanding), even if that employer is the government/taxpayer. In exceptional circumstances, unions will work with employers through hardship (as I believe had happened in Germany during economic downturns), however this is done in the interests of the employees, eg because it was in the worker's interests for these organisations not to go bankrupt/close down. If employers are not using their own leverage properly to advocate for their interests, that's on them. The fundamental power of the union is still that all the workers in the union can go on strike/quit, the employer's leverage is they can hire other people. It's hardly the union's fault that they are doing their job correctly. I understand it is disruptive to say no to union demands by basically saying 'We will hire different people then'. But that is supposed to be the final resort to demands of the workers you cannot meet, if you are unable to do this, either because the disruption is too... disruptive/costly or you literally cannot find replacements, then the workers/union has you over a barrel, this is how leverage works. I also don't think many people are going to seriously argue that teachers are overpaid. They are not the reason that the education systems they work in are broke. It doesn't stop being the teacher union's job to advocate for the material interests of the teachers just because the education system is underfunded/poorly organised.
The solution to the teacher union demanding more when their system is broke, is not to demand less. It's that the system should be not broke.
Agreed. This anti-union topic reminds me of a particularly manipulative saying about teachers: "teachers should do their job for the outcome, not the income", as a dismissal whenever educators bring up their need for financial stability like every other human being. Surely the teachers can just be guilt-tripped into sacrificing everything for the good of their students - that's why they wanted to become teachers in the first place!
In reality, that saying doesn't seem to realize that "outcome" and "income" aren't entirely mutually exclusive; if teachers can't afford to remain as teachers (they still need to eat, pay for rent, etc.), then they'll leave the profession. And on a broader scale, if money isn't allocated wisely towards schools and the needs of students and teachers, then the environment is going to become untenable, and teachers will still leave the profession. These issues lead to significant teacher shortages, where even the teachers who remain are worse off because their class sizes become too large, they end up needing to take on twice the responsibility that was initially planned for, and so on. This leads to worse conditions, expedited exhaustion for even the best teachers, and then we see even more teachers leaving the profession. It can quickly spiral out of control.
Pretty much every state in the country is experiencing teacher shortages: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/overview-teacher-shortages-2025-factsheet
Teachers' unions are comprised of teachers; without the power of that collective bargaining, our American education system would be in even worse shape than it is now.
|
|
|
That was months ago, you can’t expect MAGA or their mush brains to keep consistent that long. You only look back at the last comment and that’s how you keep winning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
