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
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The Russians know from historical experiences as the Soviets that a prolonged open ground war along the border with the PRC is not only a logistical nightmare but also strategically untenable should their forces push southwards to grab and hold territory. Hence, the violence of the Sino-Soviet split was limited to massive armoured border incursions that rolled across the line to wreck shit up on the other side at dusk and withdrew to avoid incoming reinforcements at dawn.
edited 28th May '17 11:18:01 AM by FluffyMcChicken
I knew that General Mc Master probably wouldn't last long, there's no room for sanity in this White House.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Russia wants to expand their borders into the former Soviet Union. China mostly just wants the land that's historically been part of China. (And yes, Tibet was within the traditional borders of China for long enough that there is a claim there. Not a very good claim, but a claim.) It's why China's completely uninterested in conquering the Korean peninsula, because Korea isn't part of their traditional sphere of control. Putin isn't dumb enough to do one of the very few things that will make China go completely berserk, that is, try and grab what has been their territory for centuries.
Not Three Laws compliant.
, Exactly my point, Putin wouldn't take parts of China.
use political terms to describe, not insult
So, the Washington Post did an article about impeachments: How would removing Trump from office affect U.S. democracy?. Here's a couple quotes I find relevant:
There is less consensus, however, on the long-term consequences of an impeachment. On the optimistic side, Kathryn Hochstetler and David Samuels have argued that presidential systems recover from this trauma rapidly. Their study of 18 countries found that presidential interruptions do not set off further government instability or reduce popular support for democracy.
Less optimistically, Leiv Marsteintredet of the University of Oslo studied 14 presidential interruptions, and found that some impeachments set off a longer period of political instability. When the president has clearly violated the constitution, impeachments are self-contained events. But when legislators remove the executive in response to broader issues, like failed policies or mass unrest, the president’s ouster tends to be just the opening act of a protracted political crisis.
[...]
If a nation is politically polarized, therefore, rushed calls for impeachment may not be a great idea. The president’s supporters easily dismiss evidence of corruption or abuse of power as media manipulation. Without real consensus, much of the population will see the ouster of an elected executive as an illegitimate act. Legislative leaders faced this predicament after they removed Presidents Fernando Lugo of Paraguay in 2012 and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil last year. Important segments of the population saw those impeachments merely as “soft coups.”
Also: Merkel warns US, Britain no longer reliable partners. I believe the title should say enough.
I mentioned it once before but now may bear repeating: if you Google "leader of the free world" you get images of Merkel right off the bat
x4
The former Soviet Union you say?
I mostly get images of Obama.
Very first thing i got was a Wikipedia link with merkel.
edited 28th May '17 12:41:04 PM by sgamer82
I got a politico article with a title which made me laugh: "Leader of the free world meets Donald Trump"
Also the title actually confused me....I first thought that it meant that Merkel warned the US off the UK, when it actually means that Merkel doesn't consider either the US or the UK as reliable anymore. She is right. May is an opportunist who is currently mostly playing to her voter base and Trump is a narcissist who only cares about funnelling money into his own pocket.
edited 28th May '17 12:21:05 PM by Swanpride
I do wonder what the world will look like in 10-15 years after this era of nationalism and corruption has come and gone. Will the us ever be the same?
I doubt so, seeing as trump has already burned too many bridges. I don't think Russia is going to be the dominant power it wants to be, though.
Would that it were so simple.
That diplomatic embarrassment that was Trump's overseas visit makes me more convinced that an independent, unelected commission of current and ex-State Department technocrats is necessary to directly manage American foreign policy. Imagine how quickly we'll become a third rate pariah if we elect such an idiot every four years.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
We're already on the fast track there now.
It's one thing to make a spectacle. It's another to make a difference.
If I had to predict the future I suspect that the damage Trump is doing now will be hunting the US and the world for a long time. The US will emerge from his tenure weakened and side-lined. Depending on who is following him, there will either be more and more isolation and suffering, or there will be a lot of apologizing. In any case, the powerful position of the US in the world will be lost. Same for the UK. But I actually don't expect that Russia will emerge as winner from all this. They will have to deal with more and more economic problems too. Meanwhile the EU and China will rise, because those are the countries which are currently focussing on building as many alliances as possible. And historically speaking, the country with the best alliances tends to be the winner in the end. German history has shown this. Under Bismarck we had a number of alliances, and the country thrived. Then it followed a period of isolation, two world wars and the ruin of the German country. Now we are stronger than ever due to the bonds we have forged with our neighbours and a number of other countries around the world.
Same with the US....the main reason why the US was so powerful in the last century was it being the heart of the NATO. Now that Trump has destroyed this relationship, the US is considerably weakened.
Julian Assange on Twitter
If we are to ever have peace, Trump should create Office of Leadership Engagement and cut out all bureaucracies that benefit from conflict.
CIA/State has always tried to insert itself between leaders to arbitrage the channel and prevent settlements which would reduce its power.
Would that it were so simple.
Christ, I wish MI 5 would just grab him already. Way more trouble than he's worth.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Cory Booker: Too soon to revoke Kushner clearance
Welp.
So much for his 2020 hopes.
New Survey coming this weekend!
Asgore Adopts Noelle
"Cut out the Bureaucrats, and make new Bureaucrats that only answer to the Dictator! It's the Russian Way!"
A procrastination in of itself
Assange is not in a positon to talk about a financial interest in creating conflict. That's exactly what his FSB handlers give him money to do.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
God, if there was ever a reason to violate the Vienna Convention, getting this piece of shit would be it. Alas, we must have standards.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
It isn't a Vienna Convention violation to see if we can slip Ecuador a few economic concessions under the table, is it?
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Ecuador is getting kind of annoyed at Assange, according to the rumors. Allegedly, Assange is incredibly demanding behind the scenes and they mostly bow to his demands because he's a nightmare when people ignore him. Again, these are just rumors, but rumors that do make sense. If he pushes them too far, oops, we accidentally kicked him out, our bad.
edited 28th May '17 1:45:01 PM by Zendervai
Not Three Laws compliant.
Would that it were so simple.
I find it very difficult to believe that the ambassador of Equador can't be bribed to hand over Assange.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
If they kick him out, he will be greeted by the Met I'm sure. Sadly he'll probably walk, as Sweden dropped the rape charges. And I don't think "aiding and abetting fascism" is a crime in any country...
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Take parts of China? Bruh, what?
![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]")
New Survey coming this weekend!