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 I've stumbled upon this link
, and I would like to ask if the source is credible and just how much of a trouble this is going to be if it's true. (that being the White House trying to transfer "sensitive US nuclear technology" to Saudi Arabia)
It sure does make the recent "peace conference" (and it's a term I cannot use with a straight face) in Warsaw and the recent decrying of Iran as the axis of evil somewhat disingenuous.
@Physical Stamina: In theory, probably.
In practice, you'd be pissing off a lot of potential allies and the people who put you in the White House in the first place.
So stupid move, either way.
![]()
![]()
If it's a .gov link, it's a valid source - that's literally a US government domain name, and thus can't be given out willy-nilly (to my knowledge, at least). And as ![]()
mentioned, it absolutely is a thing of concern, considering the one pushing for the deal initially was Gen. Flynn (who was a lobbyist for a Saudi group in 2016, including during the transition period), among other potential conflicts of interest at play.
Plus, such a deal has to go through Congress under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946
.
While true, that remains to be seen in court - this one goes against a specific law in a specific set of circumstances, so there's no way that could ever be upheld in court, and could result in some convictions of those that tried to push it through.
Edited by ironballs16 on Feb 19th 2019 at 5:04:11 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"@Soban: I'm not sure the left-right polarization is something that can be fixed with different voting systems; if anything I suspect the problem may be inherent in representative democracy, because this sort of polarization is present almost everywhere there's democracy.
Alternative voting systems might be a good way to mitigate it, but I fear sensible electoral reform may just be too "unsexy" to catch on among voters.
Looks like Bernie received 100,000 donations
and out-raised Kamala Harris
since just this morning.
Once Biden enters the race, the progressive wing of the party needs to consolidate around a candidate quickly, and unless someone's pulled ahead of Sanders by that point he's in the best position to claim the title of consensus candidate, unfortunately.
A scenario that rather concerns me is if a democrat wins in 2020 just in time for a major recession to hit. Global finance is not in a healthy spot right now, and the fiscals instruments used for addressing these sorts of downturns have been largely exhausted, not only in the US but also in Europe and Asia, so this could easily eclipse 2008.
Even if Trump is still in office when the bottom falls out, the bulk of the pain is going to be felt under a Democrat, which is going to sour the electorate on the party.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Feb 19th 2019 at 5:40:18 AM
The thing about range voting is that it is unbiased, whereas our current system is biased towards more extremism.
I could see Sanders gaining traction if the younger progressives, like O'Rourke, continue to make rookie gaffes, like him voicing support for the complete abolition of border barriers recently (aka open borders, extremely unpopular).
Life is unfair...
x5
Don't think that's particularly likely. Probably a normal recession, but currently we haven't rebuilt the stupid levels of private debt accumulation that made the last crisis so bad and we still have plenty of tricks left. Of course you have to find a government capable of passing fiscal stimulus but that's not limited in scale like interest rate cuts are, and there's still however many trillions worth of treasury bills for the Fed to QE away if Congress is deadlocked as per usual, although that really only breaks the fall for the stock market as opposed to the actual people.
Edited by DeathorCake on Feb 19th 2019 at 10:55:28 AM
The scenario I keep hearing about is spillover from a financial crisis in Asia, specifically China. OTOH, last I heard Chinese markets bottomed out not long ago, but absent a rather implausible grand bargain on trade it doesn't seem like that will last.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Feb 19th 2019 at 6:01:33 AM
@Hail Muffins: Your country still uses first-past-the-post elections, which naturally gravitate toward either two-party or two-party-per-constituency.
Proportional elections, candidate lists and STV allow more options. Hell, right now Germany has six viable parties, to the point where their two main parties are repeatedly going into coalition.
Edited by Ramidel on Feb 19th 2019 at 2:17:58 AM

Could he even do that, though?
i'm tired, my friend