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
Let me guess, their Puppet King was installed during the Cold War?
So, we had someone ask if Colbert would do a thing for O'Reilly getting sacked, and that if he did a "pretty much his old character but Writing Around Trademarks" I'd post it. Here it is
.
Edit: Since I'm here, Trevor Noah eviscerates O'Reilly
.
edited 20th Apr '17 6:00:33 AM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV![]()
Thing is, the US didn't overthrew the Shah - they and the UK facilitated his return to power by backing a coup against the democratically elected government Iran had at the time because they dared to want control over their oil back.
What they did, though, was standing by when the inevitable revolution happened - probably because the US government figured that continuing to prop the guy up wasn't worth the hassle.
In short: The US didn't overthrew the Shah - but they basically abandoned him when it was convenient.
edited 20th Apr '17 5:41:19 AM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyIncompetent enough that they cause a huge popular revolution that unites both Islamists and Communists.
My Church of England vicar remembers pre-revolution Iran and has commented to me that it was desperately in need of change.
edited 20th Apr '17 6:03:37 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
And it bears to mention again: The US (and the UK) overthrew a democratic government to put a hated monarchy back in charge after said monarchy was overthrown in earlier revolution (that led to the democratic government).
Honestly, my suspicion is that the only reason why some US politicians decry Iran as a source of terror while being buddy-buddy with the Saudis is because Iran didn't play ball with them. And who can blame the Iranians for that?
edited 20th Apr '17 6:15:06 AM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from history
Standard US foreign policy doctrine (and in fact the general pattern of behavior of Great Powers like Russia, China, France, and even Germany to some extent towards weaker countries within their reach) would suggest that's 100% the case; countries which defy the United States in a meaningful way are made examples of (hit with crippling sanctions, isolated, and frequently invaded) to prevent a hypothetical domino effect, those that capitulate and come forwards to "kiss the ring" are treated magnanimously with no regards for outstanding human rights issues or civil liberties, assuming public opinion permits it of course.
edited 20th Apr '17 6:38:24 AM by CaptainCapsase
That's no idle suspicion that's the honest truth. Hell, saying the Sauds "play ball" is a serious misrepresentation in and of itself.
Also, the Sixth District Fight is going on w/o a pause.
No let up: A new volley of attack ads aims for Ossoff in Georgia 6th
Democrats roar back on air with new pro-Ossoff blitz
If you've the means please do give Ossoff some extra support. (Tis not like you have to live in the state to make calls/donate/ask other people to donate.) As for the real progressive thing, besides the fact that he's running in Georgia, the middle of the road establishment thing is tailor made for that area. (Hence why his opposition is Handel and not a tea partier or an open Trumpist). Yet Ossoff still managed to wrangle half the vote while openly running on retaining the ACA and checking Trump. Do not forget incumbent advantage. Whoever wins wil probably have the seat locked for 30+ years.
For anybody who might be curious, a report on a Town Hall my local congressman, Raul Labrador (R), had last night. I didn't go. Mostly because I hadn't known about it, and it was my D&D night.
Marathon in Meridian: Rep. Labrador tells town hall, ‘We’re going to disagree’
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article145631354.html
edited 20th Apr '17 6:51:27 AM by sgamer82
Regarding Iran:
While I'm aware of Ajax and the other shenanigans that happened, many Iranians (at least here) who left Iran after the Revolution despise the US for what they see as an active attempt to overthrow their Shah. Doing nothing is an action after all. Touchy subject to a friend of mine.
The Pahlavi dynasty is still central to quite a few in the diaspora.
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleAs far as Sanders's support for blue dogs with left of center economic positions in red states goes, I'm disappointed by his insistence on labeling those people as progressives, though I do believe running candidates with left-wing economic positions and moderate if not downright right-leaning social positions is probably the way forwards when it comes to red states; opinion polling shows in recent years a massive shift away from conventional Republican economic positions even in the deep red states, even as they remain as backwards as ever in terms of social issues, and it's only a matter of time before the GOP starts shifting policy according.
It's already happening in fact. This was demonstrated quite well in the Republican primaries in fact; Trump outflanked the fiscal conservatives by promising not to cut the social safety net and calling for increased infrastructure spending. Trump promptly abandoned those positions once in office, but there's no guarantee every future Republican will do the same, and for me, the absolute worst case scenario in terms of how the parties move forwards is if progressive economy policy and progressive social policy end up becoming the domains of opposite parties, making every step forwards in one policy sphere two steps backwards in the other. Putting up with a new breed of blue dogs may be the price that we end up having to pay to gain the congressional margins necessary to enact policy, though we'll ultimately have to see what happens.
edited 20th Apr '17 7:14:06 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
![]()
So the future, according to you, is going to be Bleeding Heart Libertarianism
vs. Right Wing Socialism
?
Man, Reagan is going to be rolling so hard in his grave in the future...
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'm sure with the right propaganda they could probably convince many on the right to agree with that sentiment.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I would rather not play into the idea that we can't have both social and economic justice by doing that. To invite social conservatives into the party is essentially to invite the specter of xenophobia and herenevolk social democracy into the mix, which would be toxic to the Democrats.

Long story short, Mattis has held a bit of a grudge against Iran for decades.
Disgusted, but not surprised