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
Regarding impeachment, you need a congressional supermajority to convict an impeached President, and a failed impeachment bid could easily solidify Trump’s position. Back in Nixon’s day, the party cut a deal with him where he stepped down in exchange for a pardon, otherwise they would vote with the democrats to impeach and convict him.
Nowadays it’s more likely that the GOP will stand by him no matter what, plus the parties are far, far weaker as institutions than they once were, so he’s pretty much safe under any plausible configuration of the US senate.
But isn't that a reason to nail him on something so criminal that the GOP can't protect him? I mean, I can see them just waving away the obstruction of justice charge, plus, if they had wanted to, they could have gotten him on this months ago when he fired Comey and admitted in public he did it because he wanted the investigation go away. Boom, obstruction of justice. That was already worse than Nixon's "mmmm".
Well, this really needed to be said:
A little history lesson why the Iran hates the US so much. Basically, they have a lot of really good reasons. What he doesn't mention is this "little" incident:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
And no, the US still hasn't even apologized for it.
Now, we want to be fair and also list the number of attacks Iran has committed on US soil…oh, wait, the number is zero. The Iran attacks US soldiers which are actually in the middle east and there was naturally the hostage crisis in the US embassy, but it is actually not the habit of the Iran to send suicide bombers to the west. Those are coming from the Islamic movement the Iran opposes.
But yeah, they are really our biggest worry, aren't they? How about training a few Saudi-Arabians more while we are at it? THAT will never backfire, right?
They also did the embassy crisis, and frankly it's kind of weird that you would brush over the fact that they fund groups that have attacked US soldiers. That itself is a good reason to oppose them if they'll use proxies to attack our interests.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangA few days ago the NYT reported that Trump is eager to meet with Mueller's prosecutors because he thinks, in their words;
I fully support this idea. In fact, it sounds like the best idea he's ever had.
Edited by megaeliz on Aug 7th 2018 at 10:31:16 AM
I, too, am 100% onboard with this plan.
You can do it, President Trump! Show that highly-experienced FBI lawyer what the truth really is! Tell him everything! Everything he needs to hear to immediately shut down his investigation and praise the good name Trump! The power is yours!
...
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yeah, how dare they to attack us soldiers in their vicinity after the US destroyed their democracy. (and I did mention the embassy hostage crisis).
The point is that the US REALLY needs to acknowledge that THEY started this war completely unprovoked because they really, really wanted the Iranian oil. And they destroyed democracy in the region in the process only to complain now that the Iranian live under a dictatorship. Instead they act as if the hatred the Iranians feel for the US is just born out of fanaticism. That is like claiming that the Irish have no reason whatsoever to be angry with the Englanders.
Edited by Swanpride on Aug 7th 2018 at 7:53:31 AM
The Iranian regime is a horrible authoritarian shit show, but it’s one that the US made and that won’t go away until the US accepts responsibility for creating it and entrenching it with wanton warmongering and war crimes.
Except the opposition came first, the US doesn't hate Iran becuse Iran has attacked US soilders, it hates Iran because Iran broke free from US control and tried to bring about democracy.
Iranian attacks on US soilders make perfect sense when you consider that the US has spent decades trying to destroy any semblance of Iranian democracy and murder it’s people.
Iran is terrified that any day now the US will roll and on its doorstep, murder it’s people and subjugate the Iranian population under a brutal puppet dictatorship so that the US can exploit Iran’s natural resources. That fear is entierly justified, because that has been US foreign policy towards Iran for decades.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 7th 2018 at 3:38:09 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIranian attacks on US soilders make perfect sense when you consider that the US has spent decades trying to destroy any semblance of Iranian democracy and murder it’s people.
Iran is terrified that any day now the US will roll and on its doorstep, murder it’s people and subjugate the Iranian population under a brutal puppet dictatorship so that the US can exploit Iran’s natural resources. That fear is entierly justified, because that has been US foreign policy towards Iran for decades.
Oh please, while it's true that originally we did support the Shah it's ridiculous to explain away all of their support of Shia proxies as being afraid of the US.
They want to become a regional power and we want to contain their influence, thus their support for proxies that attack our interests makes them our foes.
I did none of that, saying that there are not unreasonable reasons to view them as our enemy is not supporting a narrative that they're unreasonable monsters.
They want to support their interests by making the Middle East their playground while we do not want that, the sins of the past don't make that any less true.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 7th 2018 at 12:00:54 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe US has been actively and openly searching for an excuse to invade Iran for decades, that fear is very real and very justified. Does it in any way justify their actions? Not at all.
Likewise the proxy thing isn’t recent, following the Shah the US used Saddam as a proxy against Iran, then there’s the whole thing with the US invading Iran’s territory and commiting mass murder, finally there’s the fact that the US was very open about it plans to use Iraq as a staging ground for a future invasion of Iran, now the US national security advisor is calling for an invasion of Iran.
It’s far from the only reasons for Iran’s actions but it’s a big one, Iran has very much at times fallen into the idea of Then Let Me Be Evil, but the fear of subjugation under the US and the destruction of not just their independence and living standards but also the little democracy they have is entirely legitimate.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 7th 2018 at 4:02:50 PM
“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 trying to contradict you so much as explain. Yes they are the US’s enemy, because the US made them their enemy by destroying their democracy, supporting a genocidal war criminal against them, murdering their people and planning to invade them so as to gain control of their natural resources.
We have no way to know how Iran would react to a US that seriously stopped trying to do horrible immoral shit to it and made amends, because the US has never tried that.
Even under Obama the US was still sheltering the war criminals responsible for the murder of an airliner full of civilians during an illegal invasion by the US. The US has never dealt in good faith with Iran and that makes it fair for Iran to refuse to deal in good faith with the US, especially as the US is the one that started all this shit and arguably the one to have commited more war crimes and human rights violations.
Russia now has legitimate reasons to view Ukraine as an enemy post-Crimea and the airliner downing, that doesn’t Chang the fact that Russia is in the wrong and started it all.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 7th 2018 at 4:10:10 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThen we don't disagree, the US has created its own enemy in Iran.
But that doesn't make them any-less of an enemy and I reject Swanpride's assertion that they have no responsibility for their actions.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 7th 2018 at 12:12:56 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangNo it doesn’t make them less of an enemy, I just hope that one day the US can at least try and uncreate an enemy there, showing genuine remorse for its actions might well cause a shift in Iranian foreign policy.
That’s assuming that there’s even an Iran left to make amends to in a few years, if Trump’s people get their way Iran will be invaded and there’s a real possibility that Trump tries to order a nuclear first strike against Iran when it gets explained to him how costly a war would be using conventional forces.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 7th 2018 at 4:18:55 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Swanpride: A sitting US president (probably, and if the issue came up it would be decided by justices appointed by Trump) cannot be indicted; impeachment is intended to be the recourse for crimes committed by the President, though in practice it’s more or less always been a political process, not a legal process.
The question of whether a sitting President can be subject to a direct criminal indictment has never been answered by the courts, and the Supreme Court would have to rule in such a case. That said, Capsase is correct that a Republican-leaning SCOTUS might well rule in his favor regardless of the merits.
Edited by Fighteer on Aug 7th 2018 at 12:18:41 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I never said that they have no responsibility for their actions. I pointed out that the Iran never attacked the US on their own soil. Which is an important point to make because a lot of people go: 9/11 = Muslims = Muslim countries are bad/at least partly responsible. It is important to point out that the Iran is actually the enemy of the kind of Islamist which stage terrorist attacks in the west, and that all the fighting they did against the US happened in their direct neighbourhood.
And all of this is btw a good reason for the EU to hold onto the Iran deal. Because the US was the one who broke it. Not the Iran. But naturally that isn't the language they use in the US, there is it "we cancelled the deal". No, you didn't, you had an agreement and you BROKE it, for no other reason than your president being petty.
If there is one matter in which the US really doesn't have the high ground it is this.

You can just buy a star on the walk of fame, you don’t have to be especially prominent from my understanding.
Also Trump spent years playing Trump on reality TV.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran