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
So Justice Rodgers put a stay on the mysterious court battle until it could be seen by the Supreme Court, December 31st.
I’m not really concerned too concerned, honestly. I’m pretty sure putting a stay on lower courts rulings is standard procedure when a case reaches the Supreme Court, and the from what little we know, the case seems pretty cut and dry in Mueller’s favor.
Edited by megaeliz on Dec 23rd 2018 at 12:22:21 PM
Basically, the state owned bank or company [[redacted]] is trying to thwart a subpoena, that is allegedly related to the Mueller Investigation.
What’s most unusual about it is the absolute secrecy around it, and how quickly it has gone through the legal system.
Edited by megaeliz on Dec 24th 2018 at 1:00:27 PM
I keep seeing accusations from the right that the left criticizing Trump for bringing troops home is hypocritical, as they're like "I thought you guys were anti-war, why would you be against this?" What's your guy's response to this? I guess mine would be, one can be anti-war and still realize that pulling out prematurely can have serious consequences.
Edited by speedyboris on Dec 24th 2018 at 8:35:56 AM
Well, Trump's general isolationism seems to be a cynical co-option of anti-war sentiment from the last fifteen years. Being anti-Iraq War in 2005 and opposing the Syria and Afghanistan withdrawals in 2018 aren't mutually exclusive opinions.
"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."I'm an Actual Pacifist and believe that withdrawal will just mean many wars down the line.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Forces deployed overseas have been thrown into confusion by the sudden drawdown order. [1]
Gen. Neller, one of the highest ranking officers in the USMC, said this to troops in Afghanistan asking what the drawdown would mean for them:
Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who’s been touring with Gen. Neller, said this about what directives have been passed along to him:
So basically nobody in even the highest levels of our government has any idea what’s supposed to be happening, or if anything is happening at all.
They should have sent a poet.Or in other words, if given a choice between "false peace" and "war to eliminate a legitimate threat to people's prosperity that cannot be dealt with peacefully", you'd choose the latter with reluctant resignation.
Edited by MarqFJA on Dec 24th 2018 at 7:34:46 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.So with no end in sight of the shutdown, a reminder to think about the person who this affects the most this Christmas.
Edited by megaeliz on Dec 24th 2018 at 1:22:32 PM
The problem with being an Actual Pacifist in this situation is that more wars and conflicts now will not result in peace for the Middle East later. There are too many grievances, legitimate and illegitimate, that simply killing Terrorists will not solve any of them in the short or long run. In fact, killing them now will just result in more problems later down the line.
The only way the Middle East is going to be able to solve it's problems is really on it's own, with the outside trying to push them in the right way, but not with force. Our Battles with Terrorist Factions within the Middle East have only resulted in more chaos, not less.
No, you kinda gotta get in there and kill the Taliban and ISIS.
The local forces and governments are simply incapable of defeating them in the long term. They just don't have the military capabilities and the governmental stability.
The situation has become far too damaged for anything other than long term outside nation building to resolve it.
What causes the problem is when you just go in and defeat the local bad guys and go home. We need to be there for decades rebuilding and ensuring that long term stability and governmental control becomes the norm.
It's something that will take generations to do and nobody has the patience or political will to do it.
Long term in this situation means 30 to 50 years at least. Not 6 to 10.
Edited by LeGarcon on Dec 24th 2018 at 1:42:17 PM
Oh really when?
The problem there is that the citizens of these nations don't want us there; they don't want us forcing our beliefs and values on them, especially not through force. If anything, a serious, dedicated occupation would result in a Soviet Afghanistan again, where the Terrorists continue to gain more and more strength with the locals because they rally their cause against the foreign 'other'. Then, if we stick around long enough to actually build a state and leave once its built, they simply gain power themselves and it goes back to Pre-built.
You can not change these States through occupation, short term or long term. We can punish them when they do wrong through tariffs and even blockades, and you can arrest Foreign Terrorists on your own soil, but occupying them will simply give the Terrorists what they want. The States themselves must ultimately go in a better direction through their Citizens, and not through us, like Tunisia. Or else you end up with Iraq, you end up with Afghanistan, you even end up with Turkey.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Dec 24th 2018 at 1:56:51 PM
But the citizens and the governments do want us there. Because we stop the Taliban from taking over.
I don't think you understand. The situation there literally cannot be resolved without foreign intervention. Local militias and government cannot solve the problems. It's why they ask us to be there in the first place.
And again, I don't think you understand what long term means. Your children will be older than you are now before we'd be "done" in the middle east.
That's simply the scale of the undertaking that has to happen if you want a permanent solution.
Also there's a big difference between a Soviet style military occupation and providing extensive military support to a democratically elected local government.
Edited by LeGarcon on Dec 24th 2018 at 2:16:44 PM
Oh really when?https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2018/12/24/day-704/
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/21/senate-trump-wall-1072331
Mick Mulvaney: It is "very possible" the partial government shutdown will continue into next year and into the new Congress. (CNN / New York Times / Washington Post)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/23/politics/mick-mulvaney-shutdown/index.html
NORAD confirmed its Santa Tracker will remain operation despite the partial government shutdown. The National Christmas Tree, however, may stay dark during the shutdown. (NPR / Huff Post)
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/23/679646329/santa-tracker-unaffected-by-government-shutdown-norad-says
2/ Trump complained that he is "all alone (poor me)" in the White House as the government entered its third day of a partial shutdown and the markets continued to tank. Trump canceled his planned vacation to Florida as 800,000 federal employees remain without pay. He spent the morning tweeting his grievances. (CNBC / New York Times / The Hill)
3/ Trump discussed firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell several times over the past few days following the latest interest-rate hike and recent stock market losses that put the market on track for its worst year since 2008. Trump told advisers he thinks Powell will "turn me into Hoover," a reference to the Great Depression-era president Herbert Hoover. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin tweeted a statement from Trump: "I totally disagree with Fed policy . . . but I never suggested firing Chairman Jay Powell, nor do I believe I have the right to do so." Experts say Trump most likely does not have the authority to remove Powell. (Bloomberg / Washington Post / CNN / New York Times)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/22/politics/trump-jerome-powell-fire-interest-rate-hike/index.html
4/ The incoming acting chief of staff said Trump "now realizes" he "does not have the authority to fire" the Federal Reserve chairman. Mick Mulvaney claimed that "it's not at all unusual for a president to complain about the actions of the Federal Reserve chairman." However, Trump broke a 25-year tradition of presidents refraining from making public comments on Fed interest rate moves to preserve its independence. (USA Today / NBC News / ABC News)
5/ Markets dropped after Mnuchin unexpectedly called the CE Os of the six largest U.S. banks to ensure that their operations were running smoothly, and that they had "ample liquidity available for lending." Treasury did not say what motivated Mnuchin's statement, though it comes amid a government shutdown and following the Dow suffering its worst week since 2008. The CE Os who spoke with Mnuchin said they were "totally baffled" by the session, finding the encounter puzzling and unnecessary. (CNN / New York Times / Politico /
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/24/investing/stock-market-today-dow/index.html
6/ Trump attacked the Federal Reserve, tweeting that "the only problem" the economy has "is the Fed" and suggesting that "they don't have a feel for the Market." Both major stock indexes fell in the worst day of Christmas Eve trading ever following Trump's tweets. (CNBC / Bloomberg / NBC News)
7/ Trump directed Mike Pompeo to fire Jim Mattis after the defense secretary had already resigned. Trump tweeted that Mattis was retiring "with distinction" at the end of February, but after reading the general's resignation letter, Trump announced that he was removing Mattis from his post by Jan. 1 – two months before the defense secretary had planned to depart. Trump appointed Patrick Shanahan – Mattis's deputy and a former Boeing executive – to serve as the acting defense secretary, calling him "very talented" and adding that "he will be great!" Shanahan will take over the government's largest and most complex agency with no military or foreign policy experience. (Washington Post / New York Times / CNN)
So on the note of "withdrawing forces now will lead to worse conflicts down the road", the Afghan capital was attacked by gunmen
, killing 28 people and injuring a couple dozen more. No group has claimed responsibility as-yet, but it's not too hard to draw a line between Trump's announcement of a drawdown in Afghanistan and this event.

It also happens to be something Putin wants….