|
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 November 04 2026 23:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote: if Trump got rid of the tariffs and got out of Iran we'd probably have Clinton and/or Reagan levels of economic growth. it is 2 3-foot putts that won't be converted until after Trump leaves office. I’m not sure if you know this. But you just said that Trump is the entire problem with the US economy 😅
|
On November 04 2026 23:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2026 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2026 22:40 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2026 22:20 Jankisa wrote: Well, that is basically what I had in mind when I wrote "perhaps tolled by Iran and Oman as suggested". That’d be a catastrophic defeat for US global hegemony. Characterizing it as “stopping” implies that the US has taken a forward position previously but is now no longer contesting it. The US is now fighting to try to win back what it had before, stopping is withdrawing, it is conceding, it is surrendering. But even if we assume that’s doable there’s also the unresolved nuclear issue. Nuclear deals with Iran previously rested on the shaky belief that the US didn’t really want to attack Iran and therefore Iran didn’t really need a nuclear deterrent. Both sides heading towards normalization paid for itself because you could pay Iran to not get a nuke with all the trade they got for not seeking a nuke. The default is now that Iran needs a nuclear deterrent and everyone can see why. I don’t want them to have one but it’d be crazy to argue that they don’t need one after a superpower attempted a decapitation strike on them. That defeat already happened half a year ago. US hegemony is already dead. The allies upon which that hegemony was founded are actively looking elsewhere. Nothing the US can do stops the entire world from already knowing that nukes are the only protection that exists. Christ even the allies of US hegemony have renewed their desire for nukes to protect themselves from America. Everything bad that happens when the US surrenders to Iran has already happened and can already not realistically be stopped. The Obama apology tour worked the first time to smooth over Bush faults. After Trump one and two that ship was sailed. We will resume being friends with America because it is economically profitable but no one will trust you again for decades. I don’t really disagree with your conclusion. My point was that the framing of “just stop and go home” undersells the magnitude of what that means. Stopping sounds like a tie, an end on current lines. Whereas the kind of going home being discussed is the kind that Germany did in 1918. And therein lies the problem. Germany’s plan for if France wasn’t defeated in 1914 was to lose the war. Before it started they identified that they could not defeat the Entente in a protracted war, the plan was to take Paris, then focus on Russia, and the backup plan if that failed was to lose. It’s all well and good to say “but the defeat has already happened” and some Germans were probably saying that in 1914 but that did nothing to prevent another 4 years and millions of dead young men. People don’t stop wars just because it’s over. A fact Putin is proving every day.
I think a big difference tho is that Iran has no real way to strike at the US, other then via fucking over oil prices. No one else in the region wants to fight Iran. Only Israel actually could and they are to busy genociding their neighbours.
Leaving would be surrender and the biggest defeat since Vietnam, one could argue its actually bigger then Vietnam. But its the only option left imo. Staying and finishing the fight sure isn't going to work out. The US isn't going to pay trillions of dollars in reparations to Iran, that avenue is out of the question. So even a peace deal is going to end up with Iranian control of the strait (which they have proven to have anyway) and a toll which is going to pay for rebuilding Iran, and then make them obscenely rich.
|
On November 05 2026 00:00 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2026 23:54 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2026 23:43 goiflin wrote:On November 04 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On November 04 2026 23:25 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2026 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:On November 04 2026 23:05 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2026 22:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Trump's response on Fox last night was excellent. He said he'd negotiate with the Democrats to get stuff passed. He's always been up for that, being a Democrat himself. That doesn't matter. They can't negotiate with him. They can't negotiate with Hitler. Especially the DSA nuts. He could get Republicans to float a universal healthcare bill or free college bill at any time and Democrats would have to block it so he would never have the chance to sign it. He could do that now and it wouldn't make it past the filibuster. Lol I love this cope. Democrats would pass that in an instant and say the 2026 elections were so overwhelming they even forced Trump to become a socialist. Not that it matters because Democrats can't (see: didn't) even pass universal healthcare when they control everything. Republicans lost so bad that oBlade is trying to ragebait over something Joe Lieberman did in 2009. It's ok. His pedophile lost. He's really upset right now. ...Everyone I voted for yesterday won, and I don't have a pedophile. You disgraceful, sick fuck. On November 04 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote:On November 04 2026 23:42 oBlade wrote: What are you talking about? Biden controlled the House and Senate. Presidents don't control either chamber of Congress. In the words of oBlade: On November 03 2026 00:24 oBlade wrote: I know at some point you knew how the Constitution worked because unlike almost every other European here, you had to actually take a test on it once. I'm to understand it wasn't Biden, you think the reason you don't have universal healthcare is Congressional Democrats, but not Democrat presidents, basically? it's ok. You've been defending him these past, what, four years or so? Why are you acting shy about liking a pedophile all of a sudden? Own your actions and accept responsibility for the man you are. A man who defends a pedophile and roots for him on the regular. I have no horse in the race. But you certainly do seem to, for reasons. what is the proof Trump is a pedophile? everything i've heard as "evidence" makes him as much a pedophile as 15.5 year Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau. Anyhow, what children did he have sex with? how old were they?
|
On November 05 2026 00:00 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2026 23:54 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2026 23:43 goiflin wrote:On November 04 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On November 04 2026 23:25 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2026 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:On November 04 2026 23:05 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2026 22:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Trump's response on Fox last night was excellent. He said he'd negotiate with the Democrats to get stuff passed. He's always been up for that, being a Democrat himself. That doesn't matter. They can't negotiate with him. They can't negotiate with Hitler. Especially the DSA nuts. He could get Republicans to float a universal healthcare bill or free college bill at any time and Democrats would have to block it so he would never have the chance to sign it. He could do that now and it wouldn't make it past the filibuster. Lol I love this cope. Democrats would pass that in an instant and say the 2026 elections were so overwhelming they even forced Trump to become a socialist. Not that it matters because Democrats can't (see: didn't) even pass universal healthcare when they control everything. Republicans lost so bad that oBlade is trying to ragebait over something Joe Lieberman did in 2009. It's ok. His pedophile lost. He's really upset right now. ...Everyone I voted for yesterday won, and I don't have a pedophile. You disgraceful, sick fuck. On November 04 2026 23:44 LightSpectra wrote:On November 04 2026 23:42 oBlade wrote: What are you talking about? Biden controlled the House and Senate. Presidents don't control either chamber of Congress. In the words of oBlade: On November 03 2026 00:24 oBlade wrote: I know at some point you knew how the Constitution worked because unlike almost every other European here, you had to actually take a test on it once. I'm to understand it wasn't Biden, you think the reason you don't have universal healthcare is Congressional Democrats, but not Democrat presidents, basically? it's ok. You've been defending him these past, what, four years or so? Why are you acting shy about liking a pedophile all of a sudden? Own your actions and accept responsibility for the man you are. A man who defends a pedophile and roots for him on the regular. I have no horse in the race. But you certainly do seem to, for reasons. Good luck with that.
|
Duolingo's stock is surging 30% on the Nasdaq. Must be all the Americans learning Arabic to prepare for Sharia law now that one Senator is a liberal Muslim, mashallah.
|
On November 04 2026 23:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2026 23:44 Introvert wrote: I mean it is going to be interesting to see how these super red state dems interpret what happened. It's not like South Carolinians are suddenly for Medicare for all. But I've said since the 2016 election dems could have gotten so much from him if they didn't say he was the next Hitler. That’s always been true. But most presidents don't recalibrate after mid term beat downs. These dems ran to the right of the national party on things like energy and immigration. I guess they could become Doug Jones and just vote party line and lose in 6 years. But somehow I don't think most want that. How will the Andrews's of SC do in fights vs the AES's of the senate and house. Remains to be seen Vance said Trump was America’s Hitler and got the VP seat so it can work out.
You are actually making my point. Trump will make up with almost anyone.
|
On November 05 2026 00:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2026 23:54 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2026 23:44 Introvert wrote: I mean it is going to be interesting to see how these super red state dems interpret what happened. It's not like South Carolinians are suddenly for Medicare for all. But I've said since the 2016 election dems could have gotten so much from him if they didn't say he was the next Hitler. That’s always been true. But most presidents don't recalibrate after mid term beat downs. These dems ran to the right of the national party on things like energy and immigration. I guess they could become Doug Jones and just vote party line and lose in 6 years. But somehow I don't think most want that. How will the Andrews's of SC do in fights vs the AES's of the senate and house. Remains to be seen Vance said Trump was America’s Hitler and got the VP seat so it can work out. You are actually making my point. Trump will make up with almost anyone.
"Make up"? He took it as a compliment.
|
On November 05 2026 00:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2026 23:54 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2026 23:44 Introvert wrote: I mean it is going to be interesting to see how these super red state dems interpret what happened. It's not like South Carolinians are suddenly for Medicare for all. But I've said since the 2016 election dems could have gotten so much from him if they didn't say he was the next Hitler. That’s always been true. But most presidents don't recalibrate after mid term beat downs. These dems ran to the right of the national party on things like energy and immigration. I guess they could become Doug Jones and just vote party line and lose in 6 years. But somehow I don't think most want that. How will the Andrews's of SC do in fights vs the AES's of the senate and house. Remains to be seen Vance said Trump was America’s Hitler and got the VP seat so it can work out. You are actually making my point. Trump will make up with almost anyone.
But I've said since the 2016 election dems could have gotten so much from him if they didn't say he was the next Hitler Clearly them calling Trump Hitler didn't matter. Because his current VP did aswell.
Your point "they should not have done that" is in direct opposition to your point "he will make up with anyone" So which was your point?
|
On November 05 2026 00:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2026 23:51 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2026 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2026 22:40 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2026 22:20 Jankisa wrote: Well, that is basically what I had in mind when I wrote "perhaps tolled by Iran and Oman as suggested". That’d be a catastrophic defeat for US global hegemony. Characterizing it as “stopping” implies that the US has taken a forward position previously but is now no longer contesting it. The US is now fighting to try to win back what it had before, stopping is withdrawing, it is conceding, it is surrendering. But even if we assume that’s doable there’s also the unresolved nuclear issue. Nuclear deals with Iran previously rested on the shaky belief that the US didn’t really want to attack Iran and therefore Iran didn’t really need a nuclear deterrent. Both sides heading towards normalization paid for itself because you could pay Iran to not get a nuke with all the trade they got for not seeking a nuke. The default is now that Iran needs a nuclear deterrent and everyone can see why. I don’t want them to have one but it’d be crazy to argue that they don’t need one after a superpower attempted a decapitation strike on them. That defeat already happened half a year ago. US hegemony is already dead. The allies upon which that hegemony was founded are actively looking elsewhere. Nothing the US can do stops the entire world from already knowing that nukes are the only protection that exists. Christ even the allies of US hegemony have renewed their desire for nukes to protect themselves from America. Everything bad that happens when the US surrenders to Iran has already happened and can already not realistically be stopped. The Obama apology tour worked the first time to smooth over Bush faults. After Trump one and two that ship was sailed. We will resume being friends with America because it is economically profitable but no one will trust you again for decades. I don’t really disagree with your conclusion. My point was that the framing of “just stop and go home” undersells the magnitude of what that means. Stopping sounds like a tie, an end on current lines. Whereas the kind of going home being discussed is the kind that Germany did in 1918. And therein lies the problem. Germany’s plan for if France wasn’t defeated in 1914 was to lose the war. Before it started they identified that they could not defeat the Entente in a protracted war, the plan was to take Paris, then focus on Russia, and the backup plan if that failed was to lose. It’s all well and good to say “but the defeat has already happened” and some Germans were probably saying that in 1914 but that did nothing to prevent another 4 years and millions of dead young men. People don’t stop wars just because it’s over. A fact Putin is proving every day. I think a big difference tho is that Iran has no real way to strike at the US, other then via fucking over oil prices. No one else in the region wants to fight Iran. Only Israel actually could and they are to busy genociding their neighbours. Leaving would be surrender and the biggest defeat since Vietnam, one could argue its actually bigger then Vietnam. But its the only option left imo. Staying and finishing the fight sure isn't going to work out. The US isn't going to pay trillions of dollars in reparations to Iran, that avenue is out of the question. So even a peace deal is going to end up with Iranian control of the strait (which they have proven to have anyway) and a toll which is going to pay for rebuilding Iran, and then make them obscenely rich.
That's what I've been saying as well, the only note from my end would be that this is nowhere near Vietnam when it comes to military catastrophes, it can be come, especially if Trump, in his dementia riddled brain decides that "cementing his legacy" as the guy who "ended Iran" is a must and he actually tries to go all in with a ground invasion, then it could turn into Vietnam or worse, but for now, it's just a light excursion.
Threw some numbers in to Gemini to compare, asked to adjust some of the Vietnam costs for inflation:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/pJsufjd.png)
So, yeah, I think it's not really anywhere close to being as big of a defeat as Vietnam was from a military or even economic perspective, form a reputational perspective I think that Trump himself did more to do so with everything else he did and Iran is just one of the more visible and stupid symptoms.
|
So can someone tell me, in the simplest terms, what avenues the Ds have for investigating all of the corruption? Are they going after DOJ, CIA, DOD, etc? Or just going to try and get the economy back on track with whatever they can? Do they immediately cancel and renegotiate tariffs or how does that play?
|
On October 19 2026 06:18 LightSpectra wrote: Oil execs are making money hand over fist though, and isn't that the most important thing in the end?
The Green New Deal would improve life in virtually every respect imaginable (jobs, power costs, pollution, independence from the middle east, avoiding weather and ecological disasters by reducing climate change, etc.), but that wouldn't be good for billionaires. So it's "extreme."
I mean, Introvert also thinks literally quoting Adolf Hitler on immigration is "moderate," it's not a surprise anything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport is scary & radical. BTW, this global warming has been awesome this fall. it has been so warm ... its been great for me... and for the homeless people of New York.
I'm going to be playing baseball and basketball until the sun goes down!
This "green" stuff does not work. It does not magically make everything better. If it did those adopting it would be succeeding and they are not.
|
On November 05 2026 00:20 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 00:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2026 23:51 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2026 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2026 22:40 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2026 22:20 Jankisa wrote: Well, that is basically what I had in mind when I wrote "perhaps tolled by Iran and Oman as suggested". That’d be a catastrophic defeat for US global hegemony. Characterizing it as “stopping” implies that the US has taken a forward position previously but is now no longer contesting it. The US is now fighting to try to win back what it had before, stopping is withdrawing, it is conceding, it is surrendering. But even if we assume that’s doable there’s also the unresolved nuclear issue. Nuclear deals with Iran previously rested on the shaky belief that the US didn’t really want to attack Iran and therefore Iran didn’t really need a nuclear deterrent. Both sides heading towards normalization paid for itself because you could pay Iran to not get a nuke with all the trade they got for not seeking a nuke. The default is now that Iran needs a nuclear deterrent and everyone can see why. I don’t want them to have one but it’d be crazy to argue that they don’t need one after a superpower attempted a decapitation strike on them. That defeat already happened half a year ago. US hegemony is already dead. The allies upon which that hegemony was founded are actively looking elsewhere. Nothing the US can do stops the entire world from already knowing that nukes are the only protection that exists. Christ even the allies of US hegemony have renewed their desire for nukes to protect themselves from America. Everything bad that happens when the US surrenders to Iran has already happened and can already not realistically be stopped. The Obama apology tour worked the first time to smooth over Bush faults. After Trump one and two that ship was sailed. We will resume being friends with America because it is economically profitable but no one will trust you again for decades. I don’t really disagree with your conclusion. My point was that the framing of “just stop and go home” undersells the magnitude of what that means. Stopping sounds like a tie, an end on current lines. Whereas the kind of going home being discussed is the kind that Germany did in 1918. And therein lies the problem. Germany’s plan for if France wasn’t defeated in 1914 was to lose the war. Before it started they identified that they could not defeat the Entente in a protracted war, the plan was to take Paris, then focus on Russia, and the backup plan if that failed was to lose. It’s all well and good to say “but the defeat has already happened” and some Germans were probably saying that in 1914 but that did nothing to prevent another 4 years and millions of dead young men. People don’t stop wars just because it’s over. A fact Putin is proving every day. I think a big difference tho is that Iran has no real way to strike at the US, other then via fucking over oil prices. No one else in the region wants to fight Iran. Only Israel actually could and they are to busy genociding their neighbours. Leaving would be surrender and the biggest defeat since Vietnam, one could argue its actually bigger then Vietnam. But its the only option left imo. Staying and finishing the fight sure isn't going to work out. The US isn't going to pay trillions of dollars in reparations to Iran, that avenue is out of the question. So even a peace deal is going to end up with Iranian control of the strait (which they have proven to have anyway) and a toll which is going to pay for rebuilding Iran, and then make them obscenely rich. That's what I've been saying as well, the only note from my end would be that this is nowhere near Vietnam when it comes to military catastrophes, it can be come, especially if Trump, in his dementia riddled brain decides that "cementing his legacy" as the guy who "ended Iran" is a must and he actually tries to go all in with a ground invasion, then it could turn into Vietnam or worse, but for now, it's just a light excursion. Threw some numbers in to Gemini to compare, asked to adjust some of the Vietnam costs for inflation: So, yeah, I think it's not really anywhere close to being as big of a defeat as Vietnam was from a military or even economic perspective, form a reputational perspective I think that Trump himself did more to do so with everything else he did and Iran is just one of the more visible and stupid symptoms. In terms of losses Iran doesn't come close to Vietnam I agree completely. I was mostly talking about the impact on America's standing and place within the world.
|
Some excellent, unhinged Jimmy posts today, this is the stuff I come here for.
|
On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote: It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly.
Update on this. El-Sayed is projected to win just two points below Jocelyn Benson in the same state, who is a moderate Democrat (white, Christian, not DSA, no strong opinions on Israel/Palestine, etc.).
Talarico is going to win by 12 points, in a state Trump won by 14 in 2024. The vibes on the ground are that he carried every downballot race. Hinojosa (now the governor) was losing almost every poll that showed Talarico leading Paxton.
|
On November 05 2026 00:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 00:09 Introvert wrote:On November 04 2026 23:54 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2026 23:44 Introvert wrote: I mean it is going to be interesting to see how these super red state dems interpret what happened. It's not like South Carolinians are suddenly for Medicare for all. But I've said since the 2016 election dems could have gotten so much from him if they didn't say he was the next Hitler. That’s always been true. But most presidents don't recalibrate after mid term beat downs. These dems ran to the right of the national party on things like energy and immigration. I guess they could become Doug Jones and just vote party line and lose in 6 years. But somehow I don't think most want that. How will the Andrews's of SC do in fights vs the AES's of the senate and house. Remains to be seen Vance said Trump was America’s Hitler and got the VP seat so it can work out. You are actually making my point. Trump will make up with almost anyone. Show nested quote +But I've said since the 2016 election dems could have gotten so much from him if they didn't say he was the next Hitler Clearly them calling Trump Hitler didn't matter. Because his current VP did aswell. Your point "they should not have done that" is in direct opposition to your point "he will make up with anyone" So which was your point?
He wasn't nominated while calling him Hitler. You have to make up with him, but I'm saying it can be done. Those two things perfectly work together. Not sure if the density is intentional at this point
|
On November 05 2026 00:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: So can someone tell me, in the simplest terms, what avenues the Ds have for investigating all of the corruption? Are they going after DOJ, CIA, DOD, etc? Or just going to try and get the economy back on track with whatever they can? Do they immediately cancel and renegotiate tariffs or how does that play?
I think they can, if they actually want to, walk and chew gum at the same time.
First thing they will, most likely do, is go for impeachment of the low hanging fruit, so impeaching the obvious crazies that have high visibility and caused a lot of damage, plus are too stupid to cover their tracks well, my top hit list would be, in order of how easy it would be:
1. Pete Hegseath (Iran war, war crimes, slurs, purges, shit OpSec) 2. Kash Patel (drinking, enriching himself, using FBI as his GF's personal bodyguards adn so much more) 3. Todd Blanche (coached Gishlane Maxwel, covered up Epstein files, nice way to get them back into public eye, plus, you know, he's Trump's personal lawyer who said while serving in DOJ his loyalty is to Trump) 4. RFK Junior (insane, dumps dead bears in Central park, has a brain worm, killed 80 kids in Haiti, plus I'm sure enriching himself and doing a bunch of other illegal shit) 5. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (Thomas has been thoroughly documented as a crook, so was his wife, I would prioritize but Schumer the feckless already said no, hopefully he changes his mind) 6. Linda McMahon (enriching herself, likely other scandals easily uncovered)
Those are just the impeachments that NEED to happen in my opinion.
Then you have investigations into:
1. Kushner (Albania, SA found, Serbia, FIFA, Russia and so much more) 2. Witkoff (Crypto, real estate deals, Russia and so much more) 3. Musk (DOGE, dropped investigations, Philladelphia and Georgia election cases, plenty of fuckery in Texas)
Even if these don't result in convictions, the subpoena power and public nature of these cases as well as brazenness that these morons operate will paint a clear picture, but it needs to be prioritized and done, form Jan 20th, every day, an announcement of investigation, subpoenas, testimonies etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|