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
Yeah, we don't need to invade countries "for the resources". That's absolute nonsense. During the Cold War, we used our military and intelligence assets to fight for geopolitical dominance against the Soviet Union. In the post-Cold War period, it was to defeat or unseat the dictators that we installed during the Cold War (Desert Storm), for peacekeeping missions (Bosnia), or for war profiteering (Iraq). We can buy the damn resources.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Did I say that the US send the CIA to replace the democratically elected government with a dictator for oil? No, I didn't, I just pointed out that the Iran itself owns oil, which is an important resource to have if you want to make the live of other nations difficult.
I frankly don't really understand why the US thought intervening against the Iranian interests was a good idea other than a "how dare those savages to throw out our British friends" mind-set.
Forgive me for being late but isn't it rather alarming that the most consequential decisions made by President Trump are the ones where he doesn't need congressional approval?
It seems to me he's starting to realize that he doesn't need Congress to get his agenda off the ground, and thus becoming more and more authoritarian. Immigration is a case in point. Democrats thought that the stalemate in Congress would mean Trump's immigration agenda would be stalled and no drastic changes to immigration policies would be made despite Trump's blathering. Well, this morning's news proves they were dead wrong about that, and it turns out Trump's immigration restriction powers are practically unlimited, and he's now doing what his base elected him to do, without Congress or anyone else able to stop him.
That should give pause to Democrats who think that electing a Democratic House or Senate will deter Trump from carrying out further unilateral actions (they won't, especially if all Republicans do nothing or egg him on or if SCOTUS continues to defer to the executive with topics like this).
Edited by Mario1995 on Aug 7th 2018 at 3:47:48 PM
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam GallagherEdited by DrunkenNordmann on Aug 7th 2018 at 9:50:12 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyThe shadow of the Cold War has never left us.
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam GallagherEdited by speedyboris on Aug 7th 2018 at 3:40:17 AM
Iran is nowadays made the enemy when it's really not, and Saudi Arabia, an ally, would fit that definition much better. They were complying partially, if not fully, with the nuclear deal to build a better future until it got pulled from their feet by a thin-skinned man.
Life is unfair...Reading the article about restricting
legal immigration got me so pissed off I actually had to punch my own hand to keep from shouting at work.
I would love, love, abso-fucking-lutely love for someone to ask President Trump (or Huckasanders) whether he'd allow in a 16-year-old with no occupation who wants to come to the US to live with his sister. When the invariable answer is "no", the follow-up question becomes "Did you really hate Grampa Frederick
that much?"
Ugh, nix that - I just now realized the zinger question would be moot because Frederick was a casualty of the 1918 Flu pandemic, which was well before Donald was born.
Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 7th 2018 at 1:41:35 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
![]()
Denying the people who most need to immigrate to get a better life or be stuck in misery and poverty the chance to do so? It really is the republican dream coming true, making the "worthy" rich the only people living in the States.
![]()
Because the US is globally competitive in high-tech industries and has one of the strongest environments for entrepreneurship in those fields? From a purely pragmatic (and US centric) standpoint, there’s no reason for the US to take in any immigrants who aren’t highly skilled and/or moderately wealthy since unlike most of Europe and Asia, the United States has no immediate issues with fertility rates.
For my part, I regard the well being of the United States as secondary to the overall well being of the human species, and the long term goal of global integration, but the people here (and elsewhere) trying to reconcile varying degrees of nationalism permissive the immigration policies of the Democratic Party really need to take a deep look at how some of their deeply held values contradict each other.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 7th 2018 at 5:08:42 AM
Well there's the reason a huge amount of America's industries depend on unskilled labor that work shit jobs, take American currency back home (or send it), and spend it there for much more than its dollar value.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Realistically, it is the legal immigrants that US should cut back on. Illegal immigrants are literally nothing but a boon to the country, but legal immigrants are the one's that could actually "steal our jobs."
Not saying I agree, I'm just saying unlike the "illegals bad" rhetoric, it actually has some logic to it other than just plain racism.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.The opposite, non-Congressional actions can be reversed as easily as they're implemented (with the exception of judicial appointment). Thus the more Trump relies on executive orders or actions the easier it will be for a Democratic President to clean up his mess.
Not saying I agree, I'm just saying unlike the "illegals bad" rhetoric, it actually has some logic to it other than just plain racism.
Except no you’ve got it backwards, people who oppose illegal immigration generally use the argument that they violated our laws and that we have the right to maintain our border. Which in isolation has some logic behind it.
That argument completely falls apart when we’re talking about the people who have jumped through the hoops of legal immigration, that is clearly and unambiguously racist.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 7th 2018 at 6:53:09 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
No, I've got it frontwards. No one opposes illegal immigrants for moral purposes. That's just a dogwhistle for xenophobia.

I’m just going to point out that the “we invaded countries for resources/oil” meme is pretty much nonsense, particularly when talking about the Middle East.
They should have sent a poet.