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
Damn you all.
On a more serious note, I'm not sure if it's in direct response to Trump, or just coincidental, but I find it a bit funny that in the midst of all of his...stuff, you have things like California's single payer, Nevada's public option, Hawaii's minimal income thing, and probably others, all seeming to be coming out faster than ever.
edited 16th Jun '17 12:02:07 PM by LSBK
I'll have a butcher's hook at that without feather ado. But really, as much as I'd like to just take flight from this conversation, I find that there is a time and a tern to speak about the differences that make left wing and right wing soar. I mean, they are just so, so sore. The tension shrikes me as unnerving.
I know I don't rank high when it comes in the pecking order of how many of my tweets I can make y'all swallow, but let me make one thing clear.
I egret nothing.
edited 16th Jun '17 12:05:57 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIf my memory is correct about past discussions his reasons for preferring Trump to Clinton are ones that the forum rules mean we can't discuss here, thus there's no point in him telling us what his reasons are. It's a rabbit hole we're not allowed to go down.
Yeah, I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean.
Maybe you're thinking of someone else?
edited 16th Jun '17 12:07:25 PM by Bense
Yes. I'm tired of repeating myself to a brick wall of Trump support too, but y'know, there's 60 million of them. It's not a conversation that we get to have just once and then it's over.
And you also have to realize that when they do show up, the Trump Supporter du Jour is not the only person listening to us. We are a public forum. We are visible to the public. There are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents reading us. There are adults and children alike. Some people entrenched in positions making grand counterarguments in their heads and then following the discussion to see if anyone says them, and others still forming their ideals and interested to hear what's being said.
Right now, Trump and the GOP are trying very hard to establish a narrative in which violent, unreasonable Democrats are carrying out a belligerent witch hunt on a petty grudge against anyone and everyone Trump-leaning. When we break out the bloodhounds and start going, "There's a Trumper in our midst. Get 'im, boy!" we are proving him right. That is the message that those on the fence take away: yes, the Democrats truly are as unreasonable and despicable as Trump says.
Is it easy to need to have this conversation every time someone whose views don't reflect ours wanders in? No, it's not. I'm just as sick of it as you are. But we don't get to claim a moral high ground if we quit doing the right thing 'cause it's hard.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Maybe you're thinking of someone else?
He's just making a reference to this
so if any point of contention of yours that splits your vote falls into either cathegory, he's just saying it's not worth it, or agreeable to the rules of these forums, to get into them.
I kinda disagree, Tobias. I don't think people from the outside who are looking into this, or any other forums do it in good will to inform themselves. They will inevitably end up nitpicking whatever suits their views already.
Hell, try this for practice: Grab your favorite troper who posts relatively frequent here, search his profile for posts, look at some depending on their titles, and then post about "The view of the opposite party" as if you were posting first for Fox News, and second for the left wing equivalent of Fox news, and you will find ammunition for both of your arguments there with some select quoting.
edited 16th Jun '17 12:23:09 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesDamn. I knew I should never have left that goose cross the road earlier. He was looking at me funny too. Hmm...
Well, I already brought up Stacey Evans borrowing heavily from President Obama's rhetoric and blowing out of the gates.
note
DeKalb DA Sherry Boston gives early punch to Stacey Evans’ bid for governor
On her campaign Facebook page early this week, De Kalb County District Sherry Boston endorsed state Rep. Stacey Evans of Smyrna over Stacey Abrams of Atlanta – the House Democratic leader.
Boston elaborated in a statement released by the Evans campaign last night:
“Stacey Evans is my friend, and I am proud to support her to be our next governor. De Kalb is looking for a new day. We’re looking for someone that understands what keeps us up at night worrying. In my work as a judge, solicitor-general and now as De Kalb district attorney, I hear it day in and day out.”
Boston may be the most influential woman in the most Democratic county in Georgia, so this early endorsement matters. Boston seems to acknowledge the shock waves it’s likely to send, characterizing her choice – at least in part — as a personal one:
“My endorsement is not against any other Democrat. In fact, our party is stronger when we have competition. My endorsement is a statement of support for my friend, a distinguished legislator and candidate in whose vision I believe will benefit De Kalb County and all of Georgia."
As for the Climate: 'Your new homeland': France's Macron launches website to woo US scientists
It said senior researchers could apply for grants up €1.5 million, which would cover researchers' salaries, as well as compensation for additional staff and work expenses. Junior researchers could apply for grants of up to €1 million.
“There is no restriction on your husband / wife working in France,” the site reassured scientists, adding: “If you have children, note that French public schools are free, and the tuition fees of universities and “grandes écoles” [highly competitive French universities] are very low compared to the American system.”
Makeourplanetgreatagain.fr asked prospective candidates to upload a one-page project proposal along with a professional resume, offering a list of universities and research institutions in France where US scientists could eventually work.
And on Cuba: Trump to roll back parts of Obama's Cuba policy
The new policy will ban most U.S. business deals with the Armed Forces Business Enterprises Group (GAESA), a sprawling conglomerate involved in all sectors of the economy, but make exceptions related to air and sea travel, the officials said. This will essentially shield U.S. airlines and cruise lines now serving the island.
But even as he curbs Obama’s détente with Cuba, Trump will stop short of closing embassies or breaking off diplomatic relations restored in 2015 after more than five decades of hostility, U.S. officials said.
He will also leave in place some other tangible measures implemented by his Democratic predecessor, including the resumption of direct U.S.-Cuba commercial flights, though Trump’s more restrictive policy seems certain to dampen new economic ties overall.
And, according to one White House official, the administration does not intend to “disrupt” existing business deals such as one struck under Obama by Starwood Hotels, which is owned by Marriott International Inc, to manage a historic Havana hotel.
There are also no plans to reinstate the limits that Obama lifted on the amount of the island’s coveted rum and cigars that American can bring home for personal use, one White House official said.
As a result, the changes – though far-reaching – appear to be less sweeping than many pro-engagement advocates had feared.
Saying that the aim was to repair what Trump has called a “bad deal” struck by Obama with Havana, one U.S. official said the new administration would leave the door open to improved relations if Cuba undertakes democratic reforms such as allowing free and fair elections and the release of political prisoners.
International human rights groups say, however, that reinstating a U.S. policy of isolating the island could make the situation worse by empowering Cuban hardliners. The Cuban government has made clear it will not be pressured into political reforms in exchange for diplomatic engagement.
At home, Trump’s critics have questioned why his administration is now singling out Cuba for its human rights record while insisting that in other parts of the world it will not lecture other countries on the issue.
Trump will issue a presidential memorandum when he delivers his speech at the Manuel Artime Theater in Miami’s Little Havana district, the heart of America’s Cuban-American and Cuban exile community. The venue is named after a leader of the failed U.S.-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 against Fidel Castro’s revolutionary government.
Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who was played a key role in pushing for Trump’s changes, was expected to attend along with U.S. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart and other Cuban-American lawmakers.
Under Trump’s order, the Treasury and Commerce Departments will be given 30 days to begin writing new regulations and they will not take effect until they are complete.
Under the revised travel policy, U.S. officials say there will be tighter enforcement to make sure Americans legally fit the 12 authorised categories they claim to be travelling under, which could spook many visitors, wary of receiving a hefty fine.
While tourism to Cuba is banned by U.S. law, the Obama administration had been allowing people to travel to Cuba as part of “people to people” educational trips for visitors, a classification that a White House official said was “ripe for abuse” by those looking for beach vacations.
Trump’s new policy will eliminate such visits by individuals while still allowing them to be done as group tours, and also retaining individual travel under other authorised categories such as religious, artistic and journalistic activities, the official said.
But Trump’s planned rollback of Obama’s policy has drawn opposition from American businesses and the travel industry, which have begun making inroads on the island, as well as many lawmakers, including some of Trump’s fellow Republicans.
Yeah, that was probably someone else. I don't remember ever having discussed abortion on these forums. Your link isn't working for me, Aszur.
Why do I think nuclear war less likely today? The simple reason is that the Cold War is over. There are a lot fewer nukes in the world today - there were around 70,000 in 1985, and it's only around 15,000 now.
Some people are never going to be swayed no matter what arguments are presented, but sometimes over a long period of time of being exposed to different viewpoints people do change their minds; your post assumes that people tend to have strong convictions instead of just sticking to their beliefs because of inertia and habit, which is far more common. It's happened with multiple tropers here, myself included (to be more specific I had only just begun to become more accepting of social justice when I started to post here).
There was a cracked article posted some months ago with a former conservative talking about this phenomenon, and positing people often change their minds by reading other people's arguments rather than actively participating in them, and how just listening for an extended period of time eventually led to an evolution of their views. I don't really have any evidence to present to show how common this is but if it's led to even a few people changing their minds I think it's worthwhile.
So in that regard I do agree with Tobias that it's important to try and hold ourselves to a high standard and give people like Bense the benefit of the doubt and simply critique their views instead of trying to make it personal. Drive-by trolls will just leave of their own accord, and they're usually fairly obvious anyway since they rarely post more than once.
edited 16th Jun '17 12:32:51 PM by Draghinazzo
Yanno, when I brought the imagery of Clinton as a twitchy rodent around a nuclear launch missile button I did it in part as mockery of the concept people have of her, not because it's an actual thing. She doesn't have to have any risk of starting a nuclear war, or even a regular non nuclear war, or even no war at all, for people to still perceive her as thus without any backing at all.
For example: Summoning a hyperbolic caricature of Clinton and a nuke button has people discussing about Clinton and nukes and how much of an issue it is when the caricaturization was mocking that attitude in the first place.
Yes, but that was but one element to his many points: Real life held a much, much bigger grasp on his change for that. He explained his encounters with pop culture, how it affected his surroundings, what people talked about in his church, rather than being wholly convinced by stuff he read online overtime. It wasn't just that. People can be subject to online arguments all they want but if their environment does not offer the opportunity or encourage that they are unlikely to see a reason why their ideas might be wrong at all.
edited 16th Jun '17 12:36:40 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThrough the whole mess Trump has shown an almost divine gift for being able to turn every criticism against him against everyone else. From middle east conflict to the Russian meddling to vice and graft has all been met with "no u!" and suddenly CNN is running shit like "Did Clinton eat a baby? No she didn't but we'll debate it with Alex Jones for the next hour and you the viewer can decide where the truth lies."
Going back on the deal with Cuba at all, even symbolically is stupid. They held up their end of the deal as far as I know. It's just another checkmark in the "can't trust America" book and if their government is loosening up, why not reciprocate and encourage further loosening up? Same with the Iran deal. Continuing to be a hardass on old enemies just because rules out the option of having them become not-enemies.
There's not even any provocation\ except maybe that Obama did it.
I note that Trump is saying he will keep the embassy in Havana open, he's not restarting wet-foot/dry-foot, Cuban-Americans can still go visit family or send money to them, and you can still legally buy cigars and rum from Cuba.
I see nothing wrong with saying "we'll lift all sanctions when you release your political prisoners and start holding real elections" either.
x3 I don't disagree, but I'll be content if that speech—or rather the follow-up actions considering how much his word is worth—doesn't include "And the embargo is reinstated in full, effective immediately and we're further demanding that Cuba's repaying every profit it made off the American people." (If that sounded too un-presidential, my younger siblings are out of town).
WaPo and the Failing New York Times have much less of a problem being snarky and judgemental, and the AJC, in addition to the above, made sure it was the first to mock Trump's "enemy of the people" outburst.
After saying all that, it might be the old print/tv media distinction...
edited 16th Jun '17 12:57:17 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives![]()
![]()
The hardline stick approach hasn't worked at any point in history I'm aware of short of a revolution overthrowing the government being sanctioned. What Obama was attempting was carrots. Cuba has made progress; they've started to open up to private enterprise, they're tentatively putting their foot in the water of freedoms of speech and press, they're getting internet access. We'd like those other things to happen but getting the government to accede to them willingly takes time.
edited 16th Jun '17 12:57:38 PM by Elle
This basically boils down to one of the longstanding conflicts between Republican and Democratic foreign policy.
Democrats support taking a belligerent nation by the arm and calmly walking them over the course of years through why what they're doing is wrong and why this other thing would be a better solution.
Republicans support breaking out the baseball bat and beating the other country over the head until they beg for mercy and agree to submit to our demands.
Obama sought to help reform Cuba. Trump wants to punish Cuba for opposing us in the past. The latter is faster and much more emotionally satisfying, but doesn't generally achieve much of any results and just sorta makes us look like assholes.
EDIT: I actually saw a bumper sticker the other day that perfect summarized the Republican and Democratic philosophies. On the back of a big pickup truck, it said, "You go ahead and give peace a chance. Me and my shotgun will cover you when it fails."
That's basically how people like Trump think.
edited 16th Jun '17 1:05:51 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Prolly cuz' the U.S has never been on the receiving side for that :P
And being a dick to people because they are under a dickbag government does not buy the U.S a ticket to the high horse, especially when the siuation can be so ironically reversed. Plus it's not just the money to Cuba that would be stopped if those sanctions return it's stuff like this
:
Though the format is weird for me to copy paste it here, suffice to say that I feel the joined help towards Cuban medical research, infraestructure, and educational opportunities are much more important than patting yourself in the back because you accept their rum and cigars.
edited 16th Jun '17 1:10:12 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
I feel an addendum is needed for that; I'm perfectly fine taking the Democrat approach when the country in question is suspect because of stuff that happened long ago and against countries that are going the wrong way but haven't given us a reason for personal attention. I'm much more Republican about countries that are actively trying to harm and bully us/allies/its people.
Even when resorting to the big stick, however, you have to offer them an out. You can't take their attempt at cooperating and then hit them again because you suddenly decide they need to do more and you can't be so unconditional that their choice becomes reduced to multiple bad outcomes, one or more of which is likely violent.
edited 16th Jun '17 1:21:39 PM by Elle
There's that right-wing hypocrisy on Cuba again. The USA doesn't get to play "starve the Commies out". Not with its long, proud history of supporting dictatorships far, far viler than Castro's. I think the forum knows by now that I am no fan of Castro or leftist dictatorships in general, but to act like the USA had some sort of moral high ground when they starved Castro while arming Videla, Pinochet, and Rios Montt is the sort of double standard I cannot stomach.
Tell me, will the USA be imposing sanctions on Saudi Arabia any time soon? On Uganda? On the various other right-wing states with horrible human rights records? For that matter, will they be doing it to China, which still pretends to be Communist? Of course they won't be. Trump's already in the process of lifting sanctions on Russia, right-wing dictatorship and actual enemy of the USA.
Cuba's been sanctioned since the 1960s. It's accomplished nothing but starving the Cuban populace. Definition of insanity folks.

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
No Hitler was a swan. Only a swan could be that psychotic.
Trump delenda est