|
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 13 2026 01:54 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 01:23 Jankisa wrote:On August 11 2026 23:38 dyhb wrote:
The Senate has an important role in foreign policy and foreign aid. If he maintains his new approach to Hasan Piker and retracts the Iron Dome lunacy, Found it, oh, boy, so you just confirmed what I said initially. you base your resistance to fascism on Israel and McCharty style "he is associated with a communist" testing. Thank you, sorry I didn't notice it before but you do write a lot of very uninteresting, repetitive and angsty stuff that I skip unless you address it directly at me. Anyway, thank you for confirming what I said 5 days ago, appreciate it! That's the "vote blue no matter who" dogma that ultimately promotes bad candidates and relies on each succeeding election being the most important one in your entire lifetime. I want candidates to earn my vote. It isn't owed, and I won't be browbeaten by the typical "I'm going to call you a fascist if you don't" framework. Such a framework isn't surprising coming from somebody that repeatedly and intentionally distorts the views of people he disagrees with. It just isn't a serious approach, and I really doubt you're serious about the fascism bit either.
I find it supremely ironic that you are criticizing the "blue no matter who" when it's been the rallying call of moderates/centrists that started during the 2018 midterms, and a very successful one at that.
Of course, as someone who just pretends to be a Democrat, it would make sense that you, once again don't have any internal consistency, but I do find it funny.
|
"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance.
|
On August 13 2026 02:54 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 01:54 dyhb wrote:On August 13 2026 01:23 Jankisa wrote:On August 11 2026 23:38 dyhb wrote:
The Senate has an important role in foreign policy and foreign aid. If he maintains his new approach to Hasan Piker and retracts the Iron Dome lunacy, Found it, oh, boy, so you just confirmed what I said initially. you base your resistance to fascism on Israel and McCharty style "he is associated with a communist" testing. Thank you, sorry I didn't notice it before but you do write a lot of very uninteresting, repetitive and angsty stuff that I skip unless you address it directly at me. Anyway, thank you for confirming what I said 5 days ago, appreciate it! That's the "vote blue no matter who" dogma that ultimately promotes bad candidates and relies on each succeeding election being the most important one in your entire lifetime. I want candidates to earn my vote. It isn't owed, and I won't be browbeaten by the typical "I'm going to call you a fascist if you don't" framework. Such a framework isn't surprising coming from somebody that repeatedly and intentionally distorts the views of people he disagrees with. It just isn't a serious approach, and I really doubt you're serious about the fascism bit either. I find it supremely ironic that you are criticizing the "blue no matter who" when it's been the rallying call of moderates/centrists that started during the 2018 midterms, and a very successful one at that. Of course, as someone who just pretends to be a Democrat, it would make sense that you, once again don't have any internal consistency, but I do find it funny. It's a message of party unity, but it matters both to some leftwingers that don't want to drop moderate votes, and moderates that don't want to drop leftwinger votes. I can criticize it because I'm not among the crowd that believes in the slogan for reasons I just stated to you.
As I told you before, the crusade to push moderate Democrats out of the party by calling them "pretends to be a Democrat" is the real energy of the left wing and one of the reasons they must be criticized within the party. Trump/Trumpism must be defeated, but all the energy is on making the Democratic party more pure by pushing out moderates with all those insults.
On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:
"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact. The fact that you must hedge on the slogan is in fact a very good reason to criticize the slogan.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. In fact, you can show empathy and understanding towards Democrats that want to reduce aid to Israel by cutting off bombs and bulldozers, even if you know that money is fungible. Or if it should be reduced every year until totally gone. Or Israel is rich enough to simply buy all of them itself. You understand that all those positions can be held without saying that there's no difference between offensive and defensive weapons.
|
The only reason 'blue no matter who' exists is because Republicans are terrible and will support the party line of terrible policies.
The answer to 'blue no matter who' is for non-Democrats to run better candidates that are actually worth voting for.
|
On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance.
lmao.
You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute.
|
On August 13 2026 03:25 dyhb wrote:
In fact, you can show empathy and understanding towards Democrats that want to reduce aid to Israel by cutting off bombs and bulldozers, even if you know that money is fungible. Or if it should be reduced every year until totally gone. Or Israel is rich enough to simply buy all of them itself. You understand that all those positions can be held without saying that there's no difference between offensive and defensive weapons.
I'd have loved to see some of that empathy and understanding from AIPAC when they were airing ads saying Ocasio-Cortez "supported Hamas" even though she was voting in favor of the Iron Dome at the time.
|
United States44236 Posts
On August 13 2026 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. lmao. You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute.
Blue no matter who doesn’t even exist. It’s vote for the one less likely to create a genocidal police state. That just happens to be the blue guy 100% of the time which creates a blue shorthand. But it’s nothing about the colour of the branding, it’s about the totalitarianism.
|
On August 13 2026 03:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 03:25 dyhb wrote:
In fact, you can show empathy and understanding towards Democrats that want to reduce aid to Israel by cutting off bombs and bulldozers, even if you know that money is fungible. Or if it should be reduced every year until totally gone. Or Israel is rich enough to simply buy all of them itself. You understand that all those positions can be held without saying that there's no difference between offensive and defensive weapons. I'd have loved to see some of that empathy and understanding from AIPAC when they were airing ads saying Ocasio-Cortez "supported Hamas" even though she was voting in favor of the Iron Dome at the time. AIPAC can also show poor advocacy or lose track of its mission at the same time as El-Sayed's mistakes. They can both be true at the same time. I don't recall AIPAC running an explicit "support Hamas" ad against AOC, but I don't live in her district and it would have to be one of your anti-AIPAC types bringing it to my attention outside of that.
|
On August 13 2026 04:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. lmao. You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute. Blue no matter who doesn’t even exist. It’s vote for the one less likely to create a genocidal police state. That just happens to be the blue guy 100% of the time which creates a blue shorthand. But it’s nothing about the colour of the branding, it’s about the totalitarianism.
The "blue" isn't the funny part. It's that LS suggested that people would "misinterpret" it to mean they should vote for people with credible abuse allegations and whatnot. It actually means voting for people with much worse than "credible abuse allegations". Pretty sure we got the entire "vote blue no matter who" crowd all the way to potentially voting for Hitler when it came up (in 2016 Jankisa)
I believe LS is misinterpreting what people mean/meant. It's a one way street to the right and that's also confused Jankisa.
|
"People aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. They must be confused."
|
On August 13 2026 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 04:08 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2026 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. lmao. You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute. Blue no matter who doesn’t even exist. It’s vote for the one less likely to create a genocidal police state. That just happens to be the blue guy 100% of the time which creates a blue shorthand. But it’s nothing about the colour of the branding, it’s about the totalitarianism. The "blue" isn't the funny part. It's that LS suggested that people would "misinterpret" it to mean they should vote for people with credible abuse allegations and whatnot. It actually means voting for people with much worse than "credible abuse allegations". Pretty sure we got the entire "vote blue no matter who" crowd all the way to potentially voting for Hitler when it came up (in 2016 Jankisa) I believe LS is misinterpreting what people mean/meant. It's a one way street to the right and that's also confused Jankisa. "People aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. They must be confused."
The short version is basically that dyhb is showing you how politics works and why the "useful idiots" parroting "vote blue no matter who" didn't understand what they were doing.
dyhb/corporate/establishment/thirdway/etc Democrats are going to continue to make demands like making Piker and the people he works with/toward helping endlessly apologize and abandon the things they ostensibly believed/advocated that got them the support from the people they'll inevitably help sheepdog back into the subservience of the people dyhb is ultimately taking up for (the Epstein Class donors, not the politicians). It starts with the "extreme" 9/11 type stuff but by elections you'll just be advocating for the same heinous things dyhb/corporate/establishment/thirdway/etc are after all this performative outrage.
It's funny because I didn't realize how oblivious you all actually were, I thought you were just being deliberately obtuse. This is actually a sort of a relief.
|
"People here aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. I'm actually relieved because this means I'm even smarter than I thought I was."
|
On August 13 2026 05:27 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On August 13 2026 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 04:08 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2026 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. lmao. You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute. Blue no matter who doesn’t even exist. It’s vote for the one less likely to create a genocidal police state. That just happens to be the blue guy 100% of the time which creates a blue shorthand. But it’s nothing about the colour of the branding, it’s about the totalitarianism. The "blue" isn't the funny part. It's that LS suggested that people would "misinterpret" it to mean they should vote for people with credible abuse allegations and whatnot. It actually means voting for people with much worse than "credible abuse allegations". Pretty sure we got the entire "vote blue no matter who" crowd all the way to potentially voting for Hitler when it came up (in 2016 Jankisa) I believe LS is misinterpreting what people mean/meant. It's a one way street to the right and that's also confused Jankisa. "People aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. They must be confused." The short version is basically that dyhb is showing you how politics works and why the "useful idiots" parroting "vote blue no matter who" didn't understand what they were doing. dyhb/corporate/establishment/thirdway/etc Democrats are going to continue to make demands like making Piker and the people he works with/toward helping endlessly apologize and abandon the things they ostensibly believed/advocated that got them the support from the people they'll inevitably help sheepdog back into the subservience of the people dyhb is ultimately taking up for (the Epstein Class donors, not the politicians). It starts with the "extreme" 9/11 type stuff but by elections you'll just be advocating for the same heinous things dyhb/corporate/establishment/thirdway/etc are after all this performative outrage. It's funny because I didn't realize how oblivious you all actually were, I thought you were just being deliberately obtuse. This is actually a sort of a relief. "People here aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. I'm actually relieved because this means I'm even smarter than I thought I was."
I understand why you resort to these petulant shitposts, but it doesn't really matter, because my analysis there will just continue to be demonstrably true in practically every interaction with dyhb like it is with the oBlade thing.
|
You thinking you’re right about everything isn’t new or remotely accurate.
Most people at some point figure out that pointing out problems is easy, saying how it should be is easy, that getting there in the real world is hard. Until you actually plant your flag and start discussing how you would actually get where you want no one is going to take your serious, nor should they. And you complimenting yourself over and over is not going to convince anyone otherwise.
It’s actually amazing how much good will you have burnt and how successful you are at turning potential allies into life long enemies.
|
Northern Ireland27262 Posts
On August 13 2026 06:12 Billyboy wrote:
You thinking you’re right about everything isn’t new or remotely accurate.
Most people at some point figure out that pointing out problems is easy, saying how it should be is easy, that getting there in the real world is hard. Until you actually plant your flag and start discussing how you would actually get where you want no one is going to take your serious, nor should they. And you complimenting yourself over and over is not going to convince anyone otherwise.
It’s actually amazing how much good will you have burnt and how successful you are at turning potential allies into life long enemies.
It’s quite remarkable really.
I think there’s 100% a good case to be made that the Dems aren’t going to solve a lot of problems afflicting Joe and Jane average American anytime soon, and are quite deficient there.
I’d happily agree with that, but they wouldn’t be instituting Fascist policies from the White House either.
It’s less doubling down than quadrupling down at this point. It’s genuinely insufferable
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
