Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I've been thinking about it and I really don't think the "Wartime Presidents always get good reception" philosophy works anymore. Trump is one of the most unpopular presidents in recent memory, that's not going to stop if he basically starts a war with a sovereign country all the while pretending they're no threat. If anything it'd get worse. No one wants a war because societies gotten way too advanced for countries to just flog missiles at each other. The internet helps because normal people have the ability to learn fully about what's going on instead of buying into propaganda.
I suppose his supporters would be like "Oh, well you're a traitor if you don't agree." But they already started that early so business as usual.
Plus like you all were saying, postponing elections is not and has never been a thing. God forbid it ever happens, but if it were I would hope that's what fires people up and we all start to realize we'd no longer live in a democracy.
Just Having FunI don’t really remember the buildup to Iraq, but there does seem to be a lot more discontent about this than there was then.
Would like to see some approval polls, honestly.
Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Jan 6th 2020 at 2:44:12 PM
Oh God! Natural light!The differences between the two Bush Wars is the first was coming to the aid of an American Ally post invasion. The Second was the post 9/11 when the country was hungry to 'Strike Back'. Both of the previous actions were had a large strike against an ally or ourselves directly.
This action has NONE of that, plus the added burden of 20 years of fruitless war in the Middle East that has left the reason worse off then how it was before we got there has embittered allot of Americans. So I don't see how this can benefit Trump in the long term.
NATO stands with US after Soleimani assassination and warns Iran
Speaking after a rare NATO meeting on Iran and Iraq in which the United States briefed its allies about last Friday's drone attack, Stoltenberg also called for a de-escalation of tensions, echoing the statements of some European leaders.
"We are united in condemning Iran's support of a variety of different terrorist groups," Stoltenberg said. "At the meeting today, allies called for restraint and de-escalation. A new conflict would be in no one's interest. So, Iran must refrain from further violence and provocations."
Despite anger last year among European NATO allies over US strategy in the Middle East under President Donald Trump, two diplomats present confirmed that the two-hour meeting at NATO headquarters went smoothly.
They said that no envoy challenged US State Department and Department of Defense officials, who briefed via video conference, over the merits of Friday's drone raid.
There was also no discussion or criticism of Trump's list of targets, that include cultural sites, if Iran were to retaliate with attacks on Americans or US assets, the diplomats said.
The meeting, which took place on a day of a huge outpouring of national grief for Soleimani in Iran, centred mainly on NATO's decision to suspend its training mission in Iraq, after an Iraqi parliamentary resolution called on foreign troops to leave.
While there was concern that the killing of Iran's second-most powerful man could trigger a conflagration in the Middle East, France, Germany and others said they wanted the Iraq mission to continue.
"It would send the wrong signal if we withdraw," one NATO diplomat said.
The NATO Iraq mission, made up of several hundred trainers, advisers and support staff from both countries of the 29-member alliance and non-NATO partner countries, includes military and civilian personnel.
Established in Baghdad in October 2018 after three years of war against ISIL (ISIS) fighters, the mission is a non-combat "train-and-advise" mission to help Iraqi security structures and institutions fend off future insurgencies. Its personnel do not deploy with Iraqi forces during operations.
"It's still not clear what will happen with NATO's mission in Iraq," said Al Jazeera's Natacha Butler, reporting from Brussels.
"NATO forces ... suspended training operations for security reasons on Saturday. Iraqi lawmakers have requested foreign troops to leave the country."
> This isn't 2003. There is nothing comparable to 9/11 galvanizing the American public.
Honestly I think that's what the Trump wants,they've had lone wolf attacks before but they're nothing in terms of scale or trauma as a 911 styled attack,Trump wants a major terrorist attack so it can be like their the Reichstag fire,hence why he ordered such a blatant attack and made it so visible an assassination,he wants a response to justify an attack
I am not surprised in the slighest that Nato is standing behind them,remember how Trump complained and wanted to leave Nato?No Doubt he's quite capable of applying pressure on Nato if they condemned the assassination
Edited by Ultimatum on Jan 6th 2020 at 8:27:48 PM
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverI've been thinking about it and I really don't think the "Wartime Presidents always get good reception" philosophy works anymore.
That idea has always been dependent on the public accepting that the war is good in the first place, meaning either a defensive war, or convincing the public that we're in the right to initiate hostilities. This has neither of those; Iran has been off the general public's radar as a potential threat since the nuclear deal was struck, and no one who doesn't already have their head up Trump's posterior is buying his limp excuses for why killing Soleimani like this was a good idea.
Starting a shooting war with Iran is far more likely to cost Trump support than gain it.
Maybe so, but there don’t seem to be any especially new polls, so I’d like to wait a bit more on that front.
Oh God! Natural light!I think what happened with 9/11 was unique in its effect on the US and the political climate. We're still feeling the effects of it almost two decades later. Part of the reason Bush was able to was because of the national trauma and desire for retaliation; al-Qaeda dealt the first blow so it seemed justifiable to a lot of the public (never mind that this reasoning was super specious since IIRC Sadam Hussein had no real ties to al-qaeda). However, I think by the end of his term people were fairly disillusioned with the results of that retaliation, and I definitely don't think the US public wants another war. I think a not insignificant amount of Trump voters are isolationists who interpret "america first" as "don't spend time, resources and manpower on things that don't benefit us directly", so if this escalates further into an invasion or something I don't think this will be particularly popular with all but the most jingoistic of the GOP base.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Jan 6th 2020 at 5:42:23 AM
In the case of.Saddam, I think that he also managed to be pretty much the Hate Sink of the ME at the time. Like, American politicians really got genuine grudges against Saddam because the dude was pretty much the worst of the ME leaders at the time.
Edited by KazuyaProta on Jan 6th 2020 at 4:47:00 AM
Watch me destroying my countryHe shit the bed last election year too. A minority of voters significant enough to win the electoral college voted for him nonetheless.
That doesn't mean that a Trump victory is a guaranteed certainty. Just keep in mind that a Trump defeat is also not a guaranteed certainty, even if he spends his entire campaign season scratching his balls and shouting the n-word.
Trump is scandalproof. Everyone knows that Trump sucks. Just under half of voting Americans love him anyway. Do not lose hope, but also do not underestimate him; if you live in the U.S., get out and vote, and try to make sure everyone you know does too. Fight for a Trump-free U.S.A.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jan 6th 2020 at 4:10:09 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Occupiers? I’m pretty sure the US already is that in Iraq.
I’m not condoning it, simply pointing it out. I believe the possibility of a third invasion of Iraq was already brought up, unless Iraq blinks that’s a definite possibility.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 6th 2020 at 3:43:03 AM
They should have sent a poet.
x7 But, that would make Mike Pence der fuhr-- I mean... the president. And I don't think we'd want that to happen either, right?
Edited by AngrokVa on Jan 6th 2020 at 12:55:14 PM

And Chevron has pulled its expatriate workers from Iraq.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/business/chevron-workers-iraq/index.html
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.