Trump threatens to yank World Cup games from Boston though it's up to FIFA to choose sites
President Donald Trump is threatening to relocate World Cup matches set to be played next year in suburban Boston.
apnews.com
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
apnews.com
K. I just think its rather misplaced to use David Hogg as an example for how the Dems can't be changed from within, when he continues to work to change them from within. He's the one who actually went through this situation and he came to the opposite conclusion, whereas you're taking a skim-read of half his story.
Crimson used Hogg as an example of the kind of position the DNC will always block. So it directly addresses that to show that the same kind of positions actually got in.
If Trump demands FIFA pull a city, FIFA will roll over and let him. Once they're deep enough in, FIFA have little to no bargaining power. Sure, I'll bet they could ask a major country like France, Germany etc. to take over last minute, but that's wildly more trouble.
There could be a lesson for FIFA here about handing their tournament to authoritarian and relatively unstable regimes that will pay them lots, but I doubt they'll learn it.
Of course the Democrats should change. But c'mon, they absolutely will not, their entire history proves it. The US voters (assuming elections in future etc) are always going to be faced with the choice of which evil to pick, always. The only people who could change that situation absolutely won't.
Voting in the lesser evil is, absolutely, not an adequate option. The people in power make sure there aren't any adequate options.
Nah, move it all to cities that voted Trump in 2024. A suitable reward for their loyalty.
I'm sure FIFA would love the idea of all the games taking place in cities like Fort Worth and Oklahoma City rather than Los Angeles, New York, etc.
Does it? Do you believe the Democratic Party before the 40s would have implemented the New Deal? Or the Democratic Party before the 60s would have implemented the Great Society?
And d'you believe American society is no better off with those things than without?
The idea that nothing ever changes is an attractive one in a period of abject disillusionment and the Democratic Party being shit. But its a misleading, short-sighted one. The fact is that quite a lot of progress has been made in quite a few areas over the last century, and in terms of progressive changes, the vast majority of legislative improvements have come from some iteration of the Democratic Party.
If we followed the doomer never-changes approach, we wouldn't have had the New Deal or (here in the UK) the NHS.
The Great Society is terrible, it was a series of insidious programs designed to implement de facto government-led racial segregation when de jure racial segregation was in its death throes. "If we can't explicitly redline anymore, let's build condensed project housing to push the black community into instead, and then we can have our segregation while being praised for our generosity".
Yes yes, we've already heard all this from you, but its not relevant in the context of my question to Thal.
I think it's a great example to illustrate the point, he offered mild criticism of the party in an effort to guide it in a better direction and they handled it like a bunch of tinpot dictators. Annulled an election and ran a new one. Hogg could see the writing on the wall and knew he wasn't going to win again, the party would make sure of that. He's just not smart enough to take his efforts elsewhere. That's on him and has nothing to do with my point, that the DNC is already an unstable dictatorship with entrenched power that can't be overcome with voting.
And he didn't even say anything cool. Just that "hey, maybe having 3/4 of our politicians being on Death's Door is not a very good idea" after 3 of them died in office. The most mild criticism against the party and they tossed him on his ass like last week's garbage.
The DNC is where progressives go to die. Either killed by the party when they dare speak out a bit too much against the entrenched power or via suicide when they turn themselves into another DNC Lapdog to be brought out during voting time to trick gullible leftists into thinking the Democrats have changed.
...and ended up with victors that stand for those same positions. So if they aimed to exclude those positions from the vice-chair, they failed, didn't they? If that was their intention (and it may well have been), then its a story of how their efforts failed.
Last edited:
I haven't heard Kenyatta say that maybe the leadership shouldn't all be geriatrics. I like Kenyatta well enough, but I don't think he's offering the same criticisms Hogg did.
Kenyatta was not Hogg's successor. He was removed at the same time, stood again, and was successful in re-election to his own vacated seat (which also shows how removal from the position failed to stop these positions taking hold). Hogg's successor is Shasti Conrad.
Also, one of Hogg's PAC's most high profile candidates was Zohran Mamdani. So he's seen some success since declining to restand.
Despite the intransigence and shitty stubbornness of the DNC, this highlights how progressives have successfully filled some of the highest profile positions in a party that has half the votes in America. In that same timeframe, the Greens have accomplished nothing. They have made no progress and cannot break 1%. I'm sorry, and its (mostly) not their fault, but its true.
Last edited:
I haven't heard her make those criticisms either. Those criticisms coming from high up in the party seems to have dried up after Hogg got made an example of, which is the point you're trying your hardest to not acknowledge.
To be honest, I did not think your point was solely around the age of candidates, rather than broader progressive credentials. Because Shasti Conrad beats Hogg on the latter, but it doesn't seem to count for anything with you.
But yeah, if your sole concern is the age of candidates, then i don't care as much. I care about progressive policies.
I care about the idea that you can change the party from the inside. Hogg shows you can't. You can't change the party if you can't criticize it. Hogg shows you can't. And what I can't do is make you realize what was being discussed instead of your own fantasy argument you wanted to argue instead.
Facism at work again. This is definitely a violation of rights and freedom of speech. The government is going to get so many lawsuits.
www.theguardian.com
www.bbc.com
MSNBC did nothing wrong. The rest of you are cowards for airing such an award to such an horrible person who was always a pawn of neo nazis and gustappo Trump.
www.yahoo.com
Outcry after US strips visas from six foreigners over Charlie Kirk remarks
Cancellations represent escalating government-wide campaign to suppress criticism of rightwing influencer
www.theguardian.com
US revokes visas over comments made about Charlie Kirk's death
The State Department shared screenshots of posts it said were examples of foreign visa holders welcoming Kirk's death.
www.bbc.com
MSNBC did nothing wrong. The rest of you are cowards for airing such an award to such an horrible person who was always a pawn of neo nazis and gustappo Trump.
‘Disgusting’: MSNBC Receives Backlash For Being the Only Major News Network Not to Air Charlie Kirk Medal of Freedom Ceremony
MSNBC received backlash on Tuesday for being the only major news network not to air the posthumous Medal of Freedom ceremony for Charlie Kirk.
Last edited:
Hogg shows you can't criticise the party... through a series of events in which vocal critics of the party were elected? And then Hogg himself assisted another vocal progressive to be elected? Make it make sense!
Balls-- You have shifted the goalposts. We were discussing progressivism in the Democratic Party, and whether the direction of the party can successfully be shifted internally. You have decided to dismiss progressive advocates succeeding because they aren't specifically focused on the age of candidates, even if they're more progressive than Hogg across the board.