US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5906

On August 12 2026 18:25 Jankisa wrote:
Also, dhyb complaining about purity testing while he moves goalposts form "he's not allowed to like a streamer"

"he's not allowed to oppose financing Israel's military"

On August 12 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:
When you repeated three times "gross things," did you ever notice how that removes distinctions between El-Sayed, Stevens, and Rogers? All three of them said gross things, why would you presume to talk about distinctions after having said that?

Hence, the problem I had.

I'm happy to compare Obama and Piker:

Obama: I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit.

Piker: I should've used more precise and better use of the language there. It's messed up that I would even give the opportunity to the right to try to morally grandstand on an issue like this, when they are 100% responsible for all the bloodshed that’s been caused.
I didn't say Americans deserved 9/11 — I said America deserves 9/11. Maybe you can chalk it up to English being my second language or whatever you want to chalk it up to

El-Sayed thinks there's not a difference between offensive and defensive weapons, but do you think there's no difference between offensive and defensive weapons? You can wish to end all of it or some of it while acknowledging a difference. Democrats disagree on this.

On August 12 2026 22:38 LightSpectra wrote:


I never said El-Sayed said a gross thing. I said Hasan did, and he apologized for it. This incessant "why won't [left candidate] condemn my gardener using a racial slur last week?" while the actual other candidates in the race are saying or doing significantly worse things is ridiculous.



Maybe I'm not being clear here. This specific quote is a flat condemnation, but Obama said other things around the same time period that were less flat. March 13, 2008 is when the viral clips of Jeremiah Wright started playing on repeat on cable news. Five days later Obama is when he gave the "A More Perfect Union" speech where he said:

"And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthens my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years."

and

"Now, some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. And I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro in the aftermath of her recent statements as harboring some deep -- deep-seated bias. But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America: to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through, a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American."

Quite a bit more nuanced than "vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements", no?



Yeah, Hasan is right here after the clarification. The people who died on 9/11 were unfortunate, innocent victims of terrorism that the U.S. government invited by its own reckless foreign policy of selling weapons to extremist groups, causing or supporting numerous coup d'etats, etc. In fact, the extremist ideologies of Salafism and Wahhabism that terrorist groups like al-Qaeda abide by are exported across the world by the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, and the United States has supported the Saud family for a century because we need their oil and stability in the region. (Reminder that Trump is trying to get them nuclear weapons too.)

The asshole thing would be to imply (willfully or negligently) that the American civilians in the WTC had it coming to them, which is what he clarified and apologized for.



AIPAC doesn't seem to think there's a difference because they keep trying to primary people who support the Iron Dome but not weapons to Israel.

As to "whether there's a difference," there really isn't one from a financial standpoint. If we cut funding for the Dome then Israel has to pay for it out of their own pockets which means they have less money to bomb hospitals and orphanages.

On August 12 2026 22:38 LightSpectra wrote:


I never said El-Sayed said a gross thing. I said Hasan did, and he apologized for it. This incessant "why won't [left candidate] condemn my gardener using a racial slur last week?" while the actual other candidates in the race are saying or doing significantly worse things is ridiculous.



Maybe I'm not being clear here. This specific quote is a flat condemnation, but Obama said other things around the same time period that were less flat. March 13, 2008 is when the viral clips of Jeremiah Wright started playing on repeat on cable news. Five days later Obama is when he gave the "A More Perfect Union" speech where he said:

"And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthens my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years."

and

"Now, some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. And I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro in the aftermath of her recent statements as harboring some deep -- deep-seated bias. But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America: to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through, a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American."

Quite a bit more nuanced than "vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements", no?



Yeah, Hasan is right here after the clarification. The people who died on 9/11 were unfortunate, innocent victims of terrorism that the U.S. government invited by its own reckless foreign policy of selling weapons to extremist groups, causing or supporting numerous coup d'etats, etc. In fact, the extremist ideologies of Salafism and Wahhabism that terrorist groups like al-Qaeda abide by are exported across the world by the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, and the United States has supported the Saud family for a century because we need their oil and stability in the region. (Reminder that Trump is trying to get them nuclear weapons too.)

The asshole thing would be to imply (willfully or negligently) that the American civilians in the WTC had it coming to them, which is what he clarified and apologized for.

On August 12 2026 23:13 LightSpectra wrote:
"When I aid victims of terrorism, they call me a saint. When I ask why the terrorists are attacking us, they call me a sympathizer."
- Helder Camara (a lil' paraphrased)

On August 12 2026 23:17 oBlade wrote:

Explain to me how Hasan is right that America deserved 9/11 in terms of what exactly the thing is that the abstract "America" deserves. You covered the why - the US recklessly sold weapons to the Taliban who harbored Al Qaeda who blew up the WTC. Explain the "what" of the deserts more.

Because there's no 9/11 without dead civilians.

"America" deserved a bunch of its civilians to die, but those specific civilians didn't deserve it themselves? This is the line? Take all the time to elaborate this contemporary leftist 9/11 view as you need. I'm listening.

On August 12 2026 23:17 oBlade wrote:

Explain to me how Hasan is right that America deserved 9/11 in terms of what exactly the thing is that the abstract "America" deserves. You covered the why - the US recklessly sold weapons to the Taliban who harbored Al Qaeda who blew up the WTC. Explain the "what" of the deserts more.

Because there's no 9/11 without dead civilians.

"America" deserved a bunch of its civilians to die, but those specific civilians didn't deserve it themselves? This is the line? Take all the time to elaborate this contemporary leftist 9/11 view as you need. I'm listening.

On August 12 2026 23:21 LightSpectra wrote:



Try reading the sentences after "Yeah, Hasan is right here after the clarification".

On August 12 2026 22:24 Jankisa wrote:


You seem pretty bad at understanding context, so let me try to help you:



This is the context of that sentence.

Considering that in the year of 2026, in the context of voting (or saying that you'd vote) for people who might help stop Trump's movement when elected to the Senate, I am pretty safe as being a propagator of fascism.

I don't understand what other point you are trying to argue, are you not currently living in UK? From what I remember you are an immigrant who hates other immigrants, or did I get that wrong?

That plus your general "kill socialists" attitude would make me believe you are a fascist who would love to be represented by actual fascists. Apologies if I got some of that wrong.

On August 12 2026 22:38 LightSpectra wrote:


I never said El-Sayed said a gross thing. I said Hasan did, and he apologized for it. This incessant "why won't [left candidate] condemn my gardener using a racial slur last week?" while the actual other candidates in the race are saying or doing significantly worse things is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm not being clear here. This specific quote is a flat condemnation, but Obama said other things around the same time period that were less flat. March 13, 2008 is when the viral clips of Jeremiah Wright started playing on repeat on cable news. Five days later Obama is when he gave the "A More Perfect Union" speech where he said:

"And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthens my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years."

and

"Now, some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. And I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro in the aftermath of her recent statements as harboring some deep -- deep-seated bias. But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America: to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through, a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American."

Quite a bit more nuanced than "vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements", no?

Yeah, Hasan is right here after the clarification. The people who died on 9/11 were unfortunate, innocent victims of terrorism that the U.S. government invited by its own reckless foreign policy of selling weapons to extremist groups, causing or supporting numerous coup d'etats, etc. In fact, the extremist ideologies of Salafism and Wahhabism that terrorist groups like al-Qaeda abide by are exported across the world by the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, and the United States has supported the Saud family for a century because we need their oil and stability in the region. (Reminder that Trump is trying to get them nuclear weapons too.)

The asshole thing would be to imply (willfully or negligently) that the American civilians in the WTC had it coming to them, which is what he clarified and apologized for.

AIPAC doesn't seem to think there's a difference because they keep trying to primary people who support the Iron Dome but not weapons to Israel.

As to "whether there's a difference," there really isn't one from a financial standpoint. If we cut funding for the Dome then Israel has to pay for it out of their own pockets which means they have less money to bomb hospitals and orphanages.

On August 12 2026 23:00 Jankisa wrote:


Just answer the question buddy, it's not that hard.

You really aren't helping your case by trying to invent new ways to not do it. It's a simple question, you refuse to answer it, you are an equivalent of an election denier.

It's not that complicated, there is no need to dumb anything down, your refusal is plenty dumb already.

On August 12 2026 23:39 WombaT wrote:
I don’t understand why it’s so controversial to say a state that’s incessantly meddled in the affairs of others was due a bit of blowback.

Nor do I see it as a complex distinction between said state having it coming and Joe and Jane American not deserving their fates.

On August 13 2026 00:02 LightSpectra wrote:
Who is claiming that the United States is singularly responsible for that? Brother, all of the dystopian things the US has done to other countries they learned from watching the British and French.