|
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 August 08 2026 03:57 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2026 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 08 2026 02:43 Jankisa wrote:On August 08 2026 01:10 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 22:40 LightSpectra wrote:
It's ok to think Hasan says gross things. I certainly agree. Haley Stevens, the pro-Israel Democrat in the primary running against El-Sayed, said "Israel comes to me in my dreams" the day after Israeli police killed a protesting teenager in the West Bank and a few days after al-Awda and Kamal Adwan hospitals were bombed by the IDF. I thought that was gross too. Mike Rogers, the Republican that El-Sayed is running against, still attends Living Word Church even after three of its ministers were charged for criminal sexual conduct with minors and the pastor admitted he didn't believe the victims. I think that's pretty gross too.
You can decide to not vote because everybody has ties to something or somebody that said something gross at some point, if that's your point of view, but be consistent about it. It's both consistent and important to rate stuff like "America deserved 9/11" as disqualifying for a campaign association, and rate that above debatable foreign policy concerns (Hamas uses hospitals as bases, which makes minimizing collateral damage around military targets difficult) + Show Spoiler +Stevens said stuff like "As I've said, Benjamin Netanyahu has made Jewish people in Israel, in America, and around the world less safe. His far-right government has continuously gone to extremes, hindering U.S.-led peace efforts in the region.""The prime minister of Israel has failed" etc etc
El-Sayed has not said "My invited guest Hasan Piker sometimes says extremist and provocative things that I condemn in the strongest possible terms." This is the same way we say Trump is corrupt and says insane and fascist things at a level far surpassing others, and don't try to pull a LightSpectra-Trumper and say "Trump says gross things, Haley Stevens says gross things, please be consistent" or "Trump is corrupt, Pelosi is corrupt, please be consistent." I remember when the biggest controversy in the news was clips from an old sermon by Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Barack Obama's church, where he said "The government gives them [citizens of African descent] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing "God Bless America". No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people". FOX News kept repeating the "God damn America" part over and over again. That was about seven or eight months before the election. Obama still won in a landslide, probably because the people most offended by the sermon out of context were solid Republican voters anyway. Obama also specifically denounced and condemned the statements without equivocation during his primary campaign. Kind of a key point that you're missing, intentionally or unintentionally. El-Sayed has missed that chance, but he should correct it as soon as possible. On August 07 2026 23:31 Jankisa wrote:On August 07 2026 22:23 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 19:56 Jankisa wrote:On August 07 2026 10:09 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2026 05:21 dyhb wrote:
I know it’s a primary and all but that +13 polling average miss for a +1 El-Sayed victory is still so wild. Did you have a preference in that primary? Safe to say you're supporting El-Sayed in the general? Polling was spotty/not the best pollsters, but best I can tell is "other" was basically a placeholder for people that voted for Stevens. Why they said "other" then voted Stevens could be explained 1000 different ways and we can't really know which are the most accurate without additional polling I doubt we're getting. I think both competitive candidates really sucked, so I'm really glad that I'm not a voter in Michigan. El-Sayed on Iron Dome “I don't believe that there's really a difference between offensive or defensive weapons.” Also, Hasan Piker is toxic as hell and should be cut off from the campaign America deserved 9/11 It doesn’t matter if rape happened on October 7th. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me Hamas is 1000 times better than the fascist settler colonial apartheid state But El-Sayed was asked about Piker quotes including those, since he campaigned alongside Piker (as opposed to merely being supported by Piker with no attachment to the campaign) It's important to talk about context. I was pretty done with him when I saw that politically idiotic move, but there's always the chance that he apologizes for past behavior and marks a clear separation. Curious, seems like Israel's interests are more important to you, a "liberal" then returning some semblance of balance of power in order to push back on Trump's worse instincts. The guy clearly asked if you would vote Democrat here and you dodged and immediately launched into McCarthyism and Israelmaxxing. White and light blue MAGA. You should really try to address the quotes in context and answer whether that person should be invited to campaign with the candidate. It's nonsense to ignore all that and try to associate "America deserved 9/11" with "Israel's interests are more important to you." "If you would vote Democrat here" ... in a primary election where the question is which Democrat? You do understand that when I said +13 polling and +1 result it was one Democratic candidate instead of a different Democratic candidate? "Do you have a preference in that primary" ... "I think both competitive candidates really sucked" ie two Democrats and candidate quality means I didn't like either "You're supporting El-Sayed in the general" ... I don't live in Michigan. I therefore can't vote there. I'm certainly not supporting his campaign monetarily due to his association with extremism and unwillingness to separate and condemn extremist comments. "but there's always the chance that he apologizes for past behavior and marks a clear separation." You're having trouble understanding nuance, so you jump to "McCarthyism" and "Israelmaxxing" in your confusion. Like America's interests are served by campaigning with mr America deserved 9/11, or saying Hamas is better than Israel. [For a second time, does not give a responsive reply] I'm right here for whenever you decide to address "America deserved 9/11" and the other two quotes without resorting to whataboutism, McCarthyism, and Israelmaxxing. Or state, for the record, that you understand "Which Democrat" is a Primary Election question and not "if you would vote Democrat" which is for the General Election. You have trouble understanding nuance, and are lashing out in your confusion. I won't indulge in your rhetorical technique of giving non-responsive replies and going off on tangents because you refuse to give a substantive comment on the real topic of my post. Oh, look, another guy so brain rotten that he is unable to answer a simple question. The rainbow of oBlade - dyhb - GreenHorizons is now complete, it's a rare horseshoe with 3 ends. Just to re-itterate one more time, the question is: If you lived in Michigan who would you vote for in the Senate elections between Abdul El-Sayed (D) and Mike Rogers (R). I'll go first, I would vote for Abdul El-Sayed. lmao. I'm sorry, what? Well, generally the 3 heads of the horse shoe share certain characteristics: - feigning victimhood - ideological rigidity and complete inability to question their own convictions - high level of smugness and complete conviction that they know better then anyone and always right - tendency to ignore clearly stated questions and assertions - extremely high opinion of their own ability to argue and write
That could describe most posters and definitely describes the Democrat establishment.
fwiw
- I don't consider myself a victim.
- I literally used to be a Democrat here. I don't know that anyone else here has shifted how they identify/act politically much/at all for 10+ years
- Are you humbly arguing for positions you believe are worse/wrong?
- Everyone here ignores plenty of clearly stated questions and assertions.
- I've repeatedly called myself a "gold league" socialist. Whereas you obviously have a very low opinion of your own posting...
Nonsense aside, you probably just need to take a break for a bit, you seem to be getting riled up.
|
On August 08 2026 03:57 Jankisa wrote:
He is basically the left wing version of Nick Shirley, with the difference being that the actual decision makers and people in power on the right do embrace him in a way that you guys like to pretend the Democrats are doing with Piker.
Yeah. El-Sayed is playing this really well, the same way Mamdani did. Their opposition's henpeckery "why won't he condemn something an Internet streamer said seven years ago [and already apologized for]??" while they're constantly like "please, can we talk about the economy, or literally anything voters actually care about" is a good contrast, and it's going to look even better after gas prices go over $4 again.
|
On August 08 2026 02:43 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2026 01:10 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 22:40 LightSpectra wrote:
It's ok to think Hasan says gross things. I certainly agree. Haley Stevens, the pro-Israel Democrat in the primary running against El-Sayed, said "Israel comes to me in my dreams" the day after Israeli police killed a protesting teenager in the West Bank and a few days after al-Awda and Kamal Adwan hospitals were bombed by the IDF. I thought that was gross too. Mike Rogers, the Republican that El-Sayed is running against, still attends Living Word Church even after three of its ministers were charged for criminal sexual conduct with minors and the pastor admitted he didn't believe the victims. I think that's pretty gross too.
You can decide to not vote because everybody has ties to something or somebody that said something gross at some point, if that's your point of view, but be consistent about it. It's both consistent and important to rate stuff like "America deserved 9/11" as disqualifying for a campaign association, and rate that above debatable foreign policy concerns (Hamas uses hospitals as bases, which makes minimizing collateral damage around military targets difficult) + Show Spoiler +Stevens said stuff like "As I've said, Benjamin Netanyahu has made Jewish people in Israel, in America, and around the world less safe. His far-right government has continuously gone to extremes, hindering U.S.-led peace efforts in the region.""The prime minister of Israel has failed" etc etc
El-Sayed has not said "My invited guest Hasan Piker sometimes says extremist and provocative things that I condemn in the strongest possible terms." This is the same way we say Trump is corrupt and says insane and fascist things at a level far surpassing others, and don't try to pull a LightSpectra-Trumper and say "Trump says gross things, Haley Stevens says gross things, please be consistent" or "Trump is corrupt, Pelosi is corrupt, please be consistent." I remember when the biggest controversy in the news was clips from an old sermon by Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Barack Obama's church, where he said "The government gives them [citizens of African descent] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing "God Bless America". No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people". FOX News kept repeating the "God damn America" part over and over again. That was about seven or eight months before the election. Obama still won in a landslide, probably because the people most offended by the sermon out of context were solid Republican voters anyway. Obama also specifically denounced and condemned the statements without equivocation during his primary campaign. Kind of a key point that you're missing, intentionally or unintentionally. El-Sayed has missed that chance, but he should correct it as soon as possible. On August 07 2026 23:31 Jankisa wrote:On August 07 2026 22:23 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 19:56 Jankisa wrote:On August 07 2026 10:09 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2026 05:21 dyhb wrote:
I know it’s a primary and all but that +13 polling average miss for a +1 El-Sayed victory is still so wild. Did you have a preference in that primary? Safe to say you're supporting El-Sayed in the general? Polling was spotty/not the best pollsters, but best I can tell is "other" was basically a placeholder for people that voted for Stevens. Why they said "other" then voted Stevens could be explained 1000 different ways and we can't really know which are the most accurate without additional polling I doubt we're getting. I think both competitive candidates really sucked, so I'm really glad that I'm not a voter in Michigan. El-Sayed on Iron Dome “I don't believe that there's really a difference between offensive or defensive weapons.” Also, Hasan Piker is toxic as hell and should be cut off from the campaign America deserved 9/11 It doesn’t matter if rape happened on October 7th. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me Hamas is 1000 times better than the fascist settler colonial apartheid state But El-Sayed was asked about Piker quotes including those, since he campaigned alongside Piker (as opposed to merely being supported by Piker with no attachment to the campaign) It's important to talk about context. I was pretty done with him when I saw that politically idiotic move, but there's always the chance that he apologizes for past behavior and marks a clear separation. Curious, seems like Israel's interests are more important to you, a "liberal" then returning some semblance of balance of power in order to push back on Trump's worse instincts. The guy clearly asked if you would vote Democrat here and you dodged and immediately launched into McCarthyism and Israelmaxxing. White and light blue MAGA. You should really try to address the quotes in context and answer whether that person should be invited to campaign with the candidate. It's nonsense to ignore all that and try to associate "America deserved 9/11" with "Israel's interests are more important to you." "If you would vote Democrat here" ... in a primary election where the question is which Democrat? You do understand that when I said +13 polling and +1 result it was one Democratic candidate instead of a different Democratic candidate? "Do you have a preference in that primary" ... "I think both competitive candidates really sucked" ie two Democrats and candidate quality means I didn't like either "You're supporting El-Sayed in the general" ... I don't live in Michigan. I therefore can't vote there. I'm certainly not supporting his campaign monetarily due to his association with extremism and unwillingness to separate and condemn extremist comments. "but there's always the chance that he apologizes for past behavior and marks a clear separation." You're having trouble understanding nuance, so you jump to "McCarthyism" and "Israelmaxxing" in your confusion. Like America's interests are served by campaigning with mr America deserved 9/11, or saying Hamas is better than Israel. [For a second time, does not give a responsive reply] I'm right here for whenever you decide to address "America deserved 9/11" and the other two quotes without resorting to whataboutism, McCarthyism, and Israelmaxxing. Or state, for the record, that you understand "Which Democrat" is a Primary Election question and not "if you would vote Democrat" which is for the General Election. You have trouble understanding nuance, and are lashing out in your confusion. I won't indulge in your rhetorical technique of giving non-responsive replies and going off on tangents because you refuse to give a substantive comment on the real topic of my post. Oh, look, another guy so brain rotten that he is unable to answer a simple question. The rainbow of oBlade - dyhb - GreenHorizons is now complete, it's a rare horseshoe with 3 ends. Just to re-itterate one more time, the question is: If you lived in Michigan who would you vote for in the Senate elections between Abdul El-Sayed (D) and Mike Rogers (R). I'll go first, I would vote for Abdul El-Sayed.
I would vote for El-Sayed because I'd trust him to vote along party lines.
As a side note, I'd like to add that, although technically not fish, some whales do indeed live in the ocean.
|
On August 08 2026 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2026 03:57 Jankisa wrote:On August 08 2026 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 08 2026 02:43 Jankisa wrote:On August 08 2026 01:10 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 22:40 LightSpectra wrote:
It's ok to think Hasan says gross things. I certainly agree. Haley Stevens, the pro-Israel Democrat in the primary running against El-Sayed, said "Israel comes to me in my dreams" the day after Israeli police killed a protesting teenager in the West Bank and a few days after al-Awda and Kamal Adwan hospitals were bombed by the IDF. I thought that was gross too. Mike Rogers, the Republican that El-Sayed is running against, still attends Living Word Church even after three of its ministers were charged for criminal sexual conduct with minors and the pastor admitted he didn't believe the victims. I think that's pretty gross too.
You can decide to not vote because everybody has ties to something or somebody that said something gross at some point, if that's your point of view, but be consistent about it. It's both consistent and important to rate stuff like "America deserved 9/11" as disqualifying for a campaign association, and rate that above debatable foreign policy concerns (Hamas uses hospitals as bases, which makes minimizing collateral damage around military targets difficult) + Show Spoiler +Stevens said stuff like "As I've said, Benjamin Netanyahu has made Jewish people in Israel, in America, and around the world less safe. His far-right government has continuously gone to extremes, hindering U.S.-led peace efforts in the region.""The prime minister of Israel has failed" etc etc
El-Sayed has not said "My invited guest Hasan Piker sometimes says extremist and provocative things that I condemn in the strongest possible terms." This is the same way we say Trump is corrupt and says insane and fascist things at a level far surpassing others, and don't try to pull a LightSpectra-Trumper and say "Trump says gross things, Haley Stevens says gross things, please be consistent" or "Trump is corrupt, Pelosi is corrupt, please be consistent." I remember when the biggest controversy in the news was clips from an old sermon by Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Barack Obama's church, where he said "The government gives them [citizens of African descent] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing "God Bless America". No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people". FOX News kept repeating the "God damn America" part over and over again. That was about seven or eight months before the election. Obama still won in a landslide, probably because the people most offended by the sermon out of context were solid Republican voters anyway. Obama also specifically denounced and condemned the statements without equivocation during his primary campaign. Kind of a key point that you're missing, intentionally or unintentionally. El-Sayed has missed that chance, but he should correct it as soon as possible. On August 07 2026 23:31 Jankisa wrote:On August 07 2026 22:23 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 19:56 Jankisa wrote:On August 07 2026 10:09 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]Did you have a preference in that primary? Safe to say you're supporting El-Sayed in the general?
Polling was spotty/not the best pollsters, but best I can tell is "other" was basically a placeholder for people that voted for Stevens.
Why they said "other" then voted Stevens could be explained 1000 different ways and we can't really know which are the most accurate without additional polling I doubt we're getting. I think both competitive candidates really sucked, so I'm really glad that I'm not a voter in Michigan. El-Sayed on Iron Dome “I don't believe that there's really a difference between offensive or defensive weapons.” Also, Hasan Piker is toxic as hell and should be cut off from the campaign America deserved 9/11 It doesn’t matter if rape happened on October 7th. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me Hamas is 1000 times better than the fascist settler colonial apartheid state But El-Sayed was asked about Piker quotes including those, since he campaigned alongside Piker (as opposed to merely being supported by Piker with no attachment to the campaign) It's important to talk about context. I was pretty done with him when I saw that politically idiotic move, but there's always the chance that he apologizes for past behavior and marks a clear separation. Curious, seems like Israel's interests are more important to you, a "liberal" then returning some semblance of balance of power in order to push back on Trump's worse instincts. The guy clearly asked if you would vote Democrat here and you dodged and immediately launched into McCarthyism and Israelmaxxing. White and light blue MAGA. You should really try to address the quotes in context and answer whether that person should be invited to campaign with the candidate. It's nonsense to ignore all that and try to associate "America deserved 9/11" with "Israel's interests are more important to you." "If you would vote Democrat here" ... in a primary election where the question is which Democrat? You do understand that when I said +13 polling and +1 result it was one Democratic candidate instead of a different Democratic candidate? "Do you have a preference in that primary" ... "I think both competitive candidates really sucked" ie two Democrats and candidate quality means I didn't like either "You're supporting El-Sayed in the general" ... I don't live in Michigan. I therefore can't vote there. I'm certainly not supporting his campaign monetarily due to his association with extremism and unwillingness to separate and condemn extremist comments. "but there's always the chance that he apologizes for past behavior and marks a clear separation." You're having trouble understanding nuance, so you jump to "McCarthyism" and "Israelmaxxing" in your confusion. Like America's interests are served by campaigning with mr America deserved 9/11, or saying Hamas is better than Israel. [For a second time, does not give a responsive reply] I'm right here for whenever you decide to address "America deserved 9/11" and the other two quotes without resorting to whataboutism, McCarthyism, and Israelmaxxing. Or state, for the record, that you understand "Which Democrat" is a Primary Election question and not "if you would vote Democrat" which is for the General Election. You have trouble understanding nuance, and are lashing out in your confusion. I won't indulge in your rhetorical technique of giving non-responsive replies and going off on tangents because you refuse to give a substantive comment on the real topic of my post. Oh, look, another guy so brain rotten that he is unable to answer a simple question. The rainbow of oBlade - dyhb - GreenHorizons is now complete, it's a rare horseshoe with 3 ends. Just to re-itterate one more time, the question is: If you lived in Michigan who would you vote for in the Senate elections between Abdul El-Sayed (D) and Mike Rogers (R). I'll go first, I would vote for Abdul El-Sayed. lmao. I'm sorry, what? Well, generally the 3 heads of the horse shoe share certain characteristics: - feigning victimhood - ideological rigidity and complete inability to question their own convictions - high level of smugness and complete conviction that they know better then anyone and always right - tendency to ignore clearly stated questions and assertions - extremely high opinion of their own ability to argue and write That could describe most posters and definitely describes the Democrat establishment. fwiw - I don't consider myself a victim. - I literally used to be a Democrat here. I don't know that anyone else here has shifted how they identify/act politically much/at all for 10+ years - Are you humbly arguing for positions you believe are worse/wrong? - Everyone here ignores plenty of clearly stated questions and assertions. - I've repeatedly called myself a "gold league" socialist. Whereas you obviously have a very low opinion of your own posting... Nonsense aside, you probably just need to take a break for a bit, you seem to be getting riled up.
- no other poster in this thread has ever complained nearly as much about being "mocked and gawked" plus a variety of a other instances of crying foul
- I can't attest for the past posting, I'm making these characterizations based on what I've seen since I started reading and participating, and you haven't been able to move an inch away from "Democrat bad" and "West bad" in this period, at all
- not at all, I do, however think I conceded things, apologized and even updated my positions on several things over the last few years
- thank you for admitting to this one, I personally believe you and oBlade are the champions of this but it's very hard to gauge
- I wouldn't call myself as anything other then a random guy who has a habit, questionably healthy of arguing with strangers online, I'm sure there is a ton of variance in quality over time
I really am not riled up, thank you for your concern.
On August 08 2026 04:25 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2026 03:57 Jankisa wrote:
He is basically the left wing version of Nick Shirley, with the difference being that the actual decision makers and people in power on the right do embrace him in a way that you guys like to pretend the Democrats are doing with Piker. Yeah. El-Sayed is playing this really well, the same way Mamdani did. Their opposition's henpeckery "why won't he condemn something an Internet streamer said seven years ago [and already apologized for]??" while they're constantly like "please, can we talk about the economy, or literally anything voters actually care about" is a good contrast, and it's going to look even better after gas prices go over $4 again.
And that should be the standard, something that corporate Democrats can't really seem to get a grip on.
Healthcare, prices, don't get distracted.
The morbid thing about it is that it seems like the neo-Liberal / Centrist / Corporate Democrats started embracing this tactic that the Right uses so well, they just don't understand that regular people don't care.
|
On August 08 2026 05:14 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2026 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 08 2026 03:57 Jankisa wrote:On August 08 2026 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 08 2026 02:43 Jankisa wrote:On August 08 2026 01:10 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 22:40 LightSpectra wrote:
It's ok to think Hasan says gross things. I certainly agree. Haley Stevens, the pro-Israel Democrat in the primary running against El-Sayed, said "Israel comes to me in my dreams" the day after Israeli police killed a protesting teenager in the West Bank and a few days after al-Awda and Kamal Adwan hospitals were bombed by the IDF. I thought that was gross too. Mike Rogers, the Republican that El-Sayed is running against, still attends Living Word Church even after three of its ministers were charged for criminal sexual conduct with minors and the pastor admitted he didn't believe the victims. I think that's pretty gross too.
You can decide to not vote because everybody has ties to something or somebody that said something gross at some point, if that's your point of view, but be consistent about it. It's both consistent and important to rate stuff like "America deserved 9/11" as disqualifying for a campaign association, and rate that above debatable foreign policy concerns (Hamas uses hospitals as bases, which makes minimizing collateral damage around military targets difficult) + Show Spoiler +Stevens said stuff like "As I've said, Benjamin Netanyahu has made Jewish people in Israel, in America, and around the world less safe. His far-right government has continuously gone to extremes, hindering U.S.-led peace efforts in the region.""The prime minister of Israel has failed" etc etc
El-Sayed has not said "My invited guest Hasan Piker sometimes says extremist and provocative things that I condemn in the strongest possible terms." This is the same way we say Trump is corrupt and says insane and fascist things at a level far surpassing others, and don't try to pull a LightSpectra-Trumper and say "Trump says gross things, Haley Stevens says gross things, please be consistent" or "Trump is corrupt, Pelosi is corrupt, please be consistent." I remember when the biggest controversy in the news was clips from an old sermon by Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Barack Obama's church, where he said "The government gives them [citizens of African descent] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing "God Bless America". No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people". FOX News kept repeating the "God damn America" part over and over again. That was about seven or eight months before the election. Obama still won in a landslide, probably because the people most offended by the sermon out of context were solid Republican voters anyway. Obama also specifically denounced and condemned the statements without equivocation during his primary campaign. Kind of a key point that you're missing, intentionally or unintentionally. El-Sayed has missed that chance, but he should correct it as soon as possible. On August 07 2026 23:31 Jankisa wrote:On August 07 2026 22:23 dyhb wrote:On August 07 2026 19:56 Jankisa wrote:On August 07 2026 10:09 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I think both competitive candidates really sucked, so I'm really glad that I'm not a voter in Michigan.
El-Sayed on Iron Dome[quote]
Also, Hasan Piker is toxic as hell and should be cut off from the campaign[quote][quote][quote]
But El-Sayed was asked about Piker quotes including those, since he campaigned alongside Piker (as opposed to merely being supported by Piker with no attachment to the campaign)
[quote]I was pretty done with him when I saw that politically idiotic move, but there's always the chance that he apologizes for past behavior and marks a clear separation.
Curious, seems like Israel's interests are more important to you, a "liberal" then returning some semblance of balance of power in order to push back on Trump's worse instincts. The guy clearly asked if you would vote Democrat here and you dodged and immediately launched into McCarthyism and Israelmaxxing. White and light blue MAGA. You should really try to address the quotes in context and answer whether that person should be invited to campaign with the candidate. It's nonsense to ignore all that and try to associate "America deserved 9/11" with "Israel's interests are more important to you." "If you would vote Democrat here" ... in a primary election where the question is which Democrat? You do understand that when I said +13 polling and +1 result it was one Democratic candidate instead of a different Democratic candidate? "Do you have a preference in that primary" ... "I think both competitive candidates really sucked" ie two Democrats and candidate quality means I didn't like either "You're supporting El-Sayed in the general" ... I don't live in Michigan. I therefore can't vote there. I'm certainly not supporting his campaign monetarily due to his association with extremism and unwillingness to separate and condemn extremist comments. "but there's always the chance that he apologizes for past behavior and marks a clear separation." You're having trouble understanding nuance, so you jump to "McCarthyism" and "Israelmaxxing" in your confusion. Like America's interests are served by campaigning with mr America deserved 9/11, or saying Hamas is better than Israel. [For a second time, does not give a responsive reply] I'm right here for whenever you decide to address "America deserved 9/11" and the other two quotes without resorting to whataboutism, McCarthyism, and Israelmaxxing. Or state, for the record, that you understand "Which Democrat" is a Primary Election question and not "if you would vote Democrat" which is for the General Election. You have trouble understanding nuance, and are lashing out in your confusion. I won't indulge in your rhetorical technique of giving non-responsive replies and going off on tangents because you refuse to give a substantive comment on the real topic of my post. Oh, look, another guy so brain rotten that he is unable to answer a simple question. The rainbow of oBlade - dyhb - GreenHorizons is now complete, it's a rare horseshoe with 3 ends. Just to re-itterate one more time, the question is: If you lived in Michigan who would you vote for in the Senate elections between Abdul El-Sayed (D) and Mike Rogers (R). I'll go first, I would vote for Abdul El-Sayed. lmao. I'm sorry, what? Well, generally the 3 heads of the horse shoe share certain characteristics: - feigning victimhood - ideological rigidity and complete inability to question their own convictions - high level of smugness and complete conviction that they know better then anyone and always right - tendency to ignore clearly stated questions and assertions - extremely high opinion of their own ability to argue and write That could describe most posters and definitely describes the Democrat establishment. fwiw - I don't consider myself a victim. - I literally used to be a Democrat here. I don't know that anyone else here has shifted how they identify/act politically much/at all for 10+ years - Are you humbly arguing for positions you believe are worse/wrong? - Everyone here ignores plenty of clearly stated questions and assertions. - I've repeatedly called myself a "gold league" socialist. Whereas you obviously have a very low opinion of your own posting... Nonsense aside, you probably just need to take a break for a bit, you seem to be getting riled up. - no other poster in this thread has ever complained nearly as much about being "mocked and gawked" plus a variety of a other instances of crying foul - I can't attest for the past posting, I'm making these characterizations based on what I've seen since I started reading and participating, and you haven't been able to move an inch away from "Democrat bad" and "West bad" in this period, at all - not at all, I do, however think I conceded things, apologized and even updated my positions on several things over the last few years - thank you for admitting to this one, I personally believe you and oBlade are the champions of this but it's very hard to gauge - I wouldn't call myself as anything other then a random guy who has a habit, questionably healthy of arguing with strangers online, I'm sure there is a ton of variance in quality over time I really am not riled up, thank you for your concern.
- You guys complain about me pointing out your incessant mocking and gawking (not of me?) more than I point it out lately
- That explains part of why you're ignorant and wrong.
- I have/do too. That's part of why I don't argue with oBlade types anymore.
- Literally everyone does this one. You might not want to praise me for conceding something though lol.
- There's something to this recognition of this sort of petulant debateaddict posting vs my idea that we were actually adults now, here to develop/mature our political understandings/actions.
It probably predates you paying attention, but I'm not joking about the thread consensus previously being that I need to stop doing what you all are doing with posters like oBlade and allow space for/focus on serious political discussions and strategizing.
Farvacola probably remembers that?
|
|
|
It would be nice to have someone who could and did discuss socialism.
|
On August 08 2026 00:25 LightSpectra wrote:
It's already public knowledge Trump is a rapist and pedophile, most Republicans don't care. I speculate that he caves to Netanyahu (and Putin and Xi) just because they have a commanding presence and Trump is an easily duped doddering old man.
There is public knowledge and public knowledge.
GHG-Emissions and waste of ressources eating away the ability of earth to sustain billions of humans is public knowledge for 200 years.
Yet...
But if gas prices in the US hit some dollar mark - still absurdly low compared to buying power it suddenly becomes a major issue.
|
Meta was paying out-and-out neo-Nazis to post on Facebook, an investigation from Australia’s ABC News found. These pages and individual creators posted content that appeared to be in clear violation of Facebook’s own hate speech policies. Nonetheless, they were able to earn money on their posts through the platform’s “Content Monetization” program — which is invitation-only: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/meta-caught-paying-nazis-to-post-on-facebook
|
The Senate came through and passed a CR with 90 votes to fund our government to December.
Three Democrats and Bernie voted against it but everyone else realized they didn't have the timing to posture a shutdown fit again.
“Today’s CR gives us the breathing room necessary to work out a budget that helps make life more affordable to working families and reins in Trump’s rampant chaos, his rampant corruption,” the Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said ahead of the vote.
Democrats instigated a government shutdown last year when they refused to approve funding bills without an agreement to extend subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. That led to the longest funding lapse in US history, but ultimately no agreement to keep the cost offsets going after the shutdown ended 43 days later.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/08/government-shutdown-vote-senate-funding-bill
|
United States24805 Posts
I anticipate that the House and Senate will reconcile their slightly differing versions of the CR in September once they are back--it doesn't seem like either party has the appetite for a long shutdown before the election. The CRs will expire either on December 4th or 11th, at which point there is a high likelihood the government will shut down until the new congress is sworn in. I'm considering booking a cruise to depart right at the beginning of the likely shutdown period in December. If I'm going to have to work for over a month without pay, at least let me get a few days off out of it and some sunny weather.
|
On August 09 2026 02:47 oBlade wrote:The Senate came through and passed a CR with 90 votes to fund our government to December. Three Democrats and Bernie voted against it but everyone else realized they didn't have the timing to posture a shutdown fit again. Show nested quote +“Today’s CR gives us the breathing room necessary to work out a budget that helps make life more affordable to working families and reins in Trump’s rampant chaos, his rampant corruption,” the Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said ahead of the vote.
Democrats instigated a government shutdown last year when they refused to approve funding bills without an agreement to extend subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. That led to the longest funding lapse in US history, but ultimately no agreement to keep the cost offsets going after the shutdown ended 43 days later. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/08/government-shutdown-vote-senate-funding-bill
Both parties agree to keep borrowing at record pace in order to not lose the election. Not surprising. Trump speed running 40 trillion well before the year is out (expected October I think?)
In my opinion the only thing that can save the US at this point is a bipartisan push for a constitutional amendment that controls spending. That could be sold to the voters and when the economic effects come in it's hard as hell to change it. So voters won't just reverse it in 2 years.
But honestly. Your politicians are looking across the isle and going "will this guy also campaign on fiscal responsibility if I go for it. Not a chance in hell." Which means they know it's fucked and likely are only in it to get theirs before it all ends.
|
On August 09 2026 05:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 02:47 oBlade wrote:The Senate came through and passed a CR with 90 votes to fund our government to December. Three Democrats and Bernie voted against it but everyone else realized they didn't have the timing to posture a shutdown fit again. “Today’s CR gives us the breathing room necessary to work out a budget that helps make life more affordable to working families and reins in Trump’s rampant chaos, his rampant corruption,” the Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said ahead of the vote.
Democrats instigated a government shutdown last year when they refused to approve funding bills without an agreement to extend subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. That led to the longest funding lapse in US history, but ultimately no agreement to keep the cost offsets going after the shutdown ended 43 days later. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/08/government-shutdown-vote-senate-funding-bill Both parties agree to keep borrowing at record pace in order to not lose the election. Not surprising. Trump speed running 40 trillion well before the year is out (expected October I think?) In my opinion the only thing that can save the US at this point is a bipartisan push for a constitutional amendment that controls spending. That could be sold to the voters and when the economic effects come in it's hard as hell to change it. So voters won't just reverse it in 2 years. But honestly. Your politicians are looking across the isle and going "will this guy also campaign on fiscal responsibility if I go for it. Not a chance in hell." Which means they know it's fucked and likely are only in it to get theirs before it all ends.
As I've said a few times, nothing will change until pain forces it to change. A balanced budget amendment is something many conservatives have advocated for decades but generally the left as well as almost all the politicians don't like it (it has become "right-coded" I think is the lingo now). Hard to imagine that ever being bipartisan. And as concerns about the debt have subsided in the GOP it still isn't really re-appearing in the Dem party outside of a few pundits and writers who are starting to catch on.
|
If we returned our tax brackets to FDR levels, military spending to Bill Clinton levels, IRS funding to Joe Biden levels, and uncapped the social security maximum tax, we'd have a budget surplus.
So of course the "budget hawks" vote for Republicans who do the opposite of all those things.
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
|
On August 09 2026 05:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 05:20 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 09 2026 02:47 oBlade wrote:The Senate came through and passed a CR with 90 votes to fund our government to December. Three Democrats and Bernie voted against it but everyone else realized they didn't have the timing to posture a shutdown fit again. “Today’s CR gives us the breathing room necessary to work out a budget that helps make life more affordable to working families and reins in Trump’s rampant chaos, his rampant corruption,” the Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said ahead of the vote.
Democrats instigated a government shutdown last year when they refused to approve funding bills without an agreement to extend subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. That led to the longest funding lapse in US history, but ultimately no agreement to keep the cost offsets going after the shutdown ended 43 days later. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/08/government-shutdown-vote-senate-funding-bill Both parties agree to keep borrowing at record pace in order to not lose the election. Not surprising. Trump speed running 40 trillion well before the year is out (expected October I think?) In my opinion the only thing that can save the US at this point is a bipartisan push for a constitutional amendment that controls spending. That could be sold to the voters and when the economic effects come in it's hard as hell to change it. So voters won't just reverse it in 2 years. But honestly. Your politicians are looking across the isle and going "will this guy also campaign on fiscal responsibility if I go for it. Not a chance in hell." Which means they know it's fucked and likely are only in it to get theirs before it all ends. As I've said a few times, nothing will change until pain forces it to change. A balanced budget amendment is something many conservatives have advocated for decades but generally the left as well as almost all the politicians don't like it (it has become "right-coded" I think is the lingo now). Hard to imagine that ever being bipartisan. And as concerns about the debt have subsided in the GOP it still isn't really re-appearing in the Dem party outside of a few pundits and writers who are starting to catch on.
The problem with that is that the debt problem is like periodontitis. You might know you have it and maybe it's a little bit annoying that your gums bleed. But once your teeth are lose enough to bother you the effort to cure it and regain function is enormous. Orders of magnitude more money, pain, time and effort compared to if you had started flossing when your dentist told you to 15 years ago.
Look at Greece. They did *nothing* until they were already over the edge and as bad as their recovery was it was cushioned like hell from the rest of the EU bailing them out. There is no one that can even start to help the US out (maybe China) and the rest of the world economy will enter a great depression at the same time.
|
On August 09 2026 05:48 LightSpectra wrote:
If we returned our tax brackets to FDR levels, military spending to Bill Clinton levels, IRS funding to Joe Biden levels, and uncapped the social security maximum tax, we'd have a budget surplus.
So of course the "budget hawks" vote for Republicans who do the opposite of all those things.
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
But no Democrat would ever propose those things just to deal with the debt. They want those things to pay *for* other spending they want to do. Take uncapping social security taxes, people want to use that to either just pay more into SS (most of the money going to wealthier retirees, but that's another partially philosophical discussion). No one would ever propose one of the biggest single tax hikes in history (which is what it would be) just to help the debt. Most proposals for it want to use the money to make social security solvent for a few extra years, which is all it would do.
|
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth.
|
Republicans only care about deficit when it’s for paying for the education of destitute children and the cancer treatment of people without means.
When it comes from bombing the shit out of Iran for no other reason than the dottard being a clueless cunt or to offer tax cuts to a bunch of billionaires, they absolutely don’t give a shit.
oblade expressed it very eloquently when he said he didn’t want a (tiny) bit of his grand children tax money help saving millions of lives in Africa, but had absolutely zero problem with Trump absolutely torching money with his ludicrous little war or his 19th century tariff war.
If you just assume every concern of republicans voters is a disguised will to make weaker people suffer, you usually land right.
|
On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth.
Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former.
|
On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former.
Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ?
That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
