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
@164,520: Yes
@164,521: It's not worth the death of human beings over property. This is like saying we should have the death penalty for theft.
edited 28th Dec '16 2:08:57 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
Military action does include just responding with cyber attacks in kind, that is the military's jurisdiction.
And ultimately yes, when it comes to unfriendly international relations sometimes killing people over property or land is the correct choice. We can't not respond to foreign attacks launched by foreign governments simply because nobody was hurt this time.
Nobody was injured in those missile attacks on the Mason, should we not have responded to them?
edited 28th Dec '16 2:12:15 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?@Rational Insanity: You think Trump is going to care enough to do any of that? I mean, he might not be able to control if one of our agencies do cyber attacks on another nation, or even care enough to tell them not to, but he's certainly not in the mood to sanction Russia. Not unless Putin publicly insults him, and Putin's not that stupid to piss off a useful idiot.
edited 28th Dec '16 2:14:37 PM by AceofSpades
I believe Obama himself is going to announce new sanctions on Russia pretty soon. But unless he can find a way to actually make them stick even once he leaves office, it's a purely symbolic gesture - and a weak one at that. The time to act has passed, and leveraging new and ultimately ineffective sanctions at them months after their victory just makes us look ridiculous.
If there's one thing I'm pissed off at Obama for, it's this whole disaster. The ugly truth is, Russia screwed us over on his watch, and now he's handing the nuclear keys over to a treasonous kleptocrat.
I just hope that whatever he does with himself after he leaves office is good. He might be able to do good work rebuilding the DNC, or turning to more general activism.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Which, again, is why the time to act was before we got here. But instead he let McConnell strongarm him with the threat of appearing overly partisan - which isn't something the GOP have ever had any compunctions against.
As it stands, Trump is an illegitimate President whose very nature invites a Constitutional crisis. A few extra temporary sanctions against Russia are just going to make them laugh even harder.
Agreed, though. I think Putin may be one of the only people in the world who had a good 2016.
edited 28th Dec '16 2:27:22 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Obama staying in power via force would result in Trump taking power by force, said force might include nuclear force on Trump's part, so I'd say Obama going peacefully is for the best.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBecause elements of the armed forces would support Trump and some of said forces would likely be nuclear armed. Obama would also have nukes but in a second civil war scenario I fail to see how both sides wouldn't end up with access to nuclear weapons.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm not sure Trump will get rid of the sanctions so easily. Certainly I'd be politically costly enough that any normal politician would hesitate- it would serve to further paint him as a Russian puppet, and draw further bipartisan ire. It's not like he has a whole bunch of extra goodwill and support he can afford to spend.
He might do it nevertheless, as he's not a normal politician, but he'd have to come up with a damn good way to spin it first.
Trump will never turn on Russia, especially if the theories about them having blackmail material on him are true. And those aren't random crackpot theories, either - they have merit.
And as for overturning the sanctions earning him a lot of bad PR - he doesn't give a crap, nor does he have any real reason to. A scandal isn't going to sink his presidency, it'll be just another one for the heap.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."@RBluefish: That's overestimating him, I think. Because his numbers did take a hit every time a new scandal popped out. His coalition of support is fragile. The GOP brass hates him and would love an excuse to get rid of him. Tweeting 'Happy Hanukah' made the alt-right start fighting each other.
If he decides that one new scandal won't sink him, it's at his own peril. I do not think he's that stupid. At the very least, I believe he understands the importance of controlling the narrative, and wants to discredit the one where he's a Russian pawn.
edited 28th Dec '16 2:56:11 PM by Gilphon

Hillary did arm child soldiers?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman