TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#273876: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:20:47 AM

> Domestic surveillance. Giving the CIA drone strike authority.

You've had Domestic surveillance for a long time now,even before Obama,and how is giving the CIA the authority to use drones strikes a bad idea?

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#273877: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:23:08 AM

Because, as documented in the drone thread, the CIA is far too reckless and sloppy with applying them.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#273878: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:24:55 AM

[up][up] I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here. Obama was a better than average President, but it still stands that we shouldn’t deify him. Nobody’s perfect.

They should have sent a poet.
Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#273879: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:26:38 AM

A valid answer I've found,I imagine when the police forces started using them it was only natural that the CIA got to use them eventually

[up][up]

Edited by Ultimatum on Mar 9th 2019 at 2:27:01 PM

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#273880: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:30:18 AM

[up]The police are using drone strikes???

The war on drugs must have ramped up a lot when I wasn't looking.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#273881: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:31:50 AM

No but they're making using drones for surveillance so it was only natural that the CIA would start using them,drone strikes would be the next step

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#273882: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:32:34 AM

[up]

To give an idea of what "sloppy" means in this context - according to the CIA guidelines, valid targets basically consist of fighting-age men. Therefore, if they kill a 20-something man who just happened to be down at the market the same day the drone was hunting down actual ISIS or Taliban fighters, it wasn't collateral damage - he was a valid target. And Trump, naturally, gave them more leeway with it again.

And the idea of drone strikes is a disquieting one. On the one hand, it's the same tactics The Empire tends to use against less well-equipped enemies to suppress them. On the other hand, it acts as a great demoralization tactic, as terrorist fighters are denied the Taking You with Me opportunity - unfortunately, that demoralization tactic has hurt innocents as well, to the point that the death of a grandmother in a drone strike in Pakistan made her grandson afraid of clear skies, as that's when the drones are out in force.

Edited by ironballs16 on Mar 9th 2019 at 9:37:37 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#273883: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:32:36 AM

[up][up] The CIA had drones long before any police department did.

I’ll also point out that the program isn’t new, just the weapon. The CIA has been engaging in “targeted killings” as part of the counterterrorism mission since the 70s, they just used other methods before. In ‘85 they actually tried to kill a target with a car bomb but ended up killing 80 civilians instead. Air raids connected to their counterterrorism mission routinely killed dozens of civilians per strike during the 80s and 90s. They’ve always been like this.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 9th 2019 at 6:36:03 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#273884: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:36:21 AM

There is a HUGE difference between using drones for surveillance and drone strikes.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#273885: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:37:26 AM

To safe time they can do both at once!

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#273886: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:43:20 AM

There is a HUGE difference between using drones for surveillance and drone strikes.

True, but both are useful so I'm rather fond of them.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Mar 9th 2019 at 9:43:48 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#273887: Mar 9th 2019 at 6:49:01 AM

[up] One of the Obama admin’s big failures was advertising the drone program as a surgical, zero-cost solution.

Airstrikes cause civilian casualties. It’s almost unavoidable in the environments we fight in, and drones aren’t really any different.

They should have sent a poet.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#273888: Mar 9th 2019 at 7:02:36 AM

I'm not against drone strikes in general, or criminal surveillance, or intervening in foreign countries when our interests and the humanitarian needs of the people who live there align.

I am, however, against loose strike criteria that unecessarily kill innocent people, warrantless surveillance that collects information on millions of Americans who are not suspected of committing a crime, or leaving people to survive in a war zone we created.

Edited by DeMarquis on Mar 9th 2019 at 10:03:00 AM

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#273890: Mar 9th 2019 at 8:29:48 AM

The biggest arguments against drone strikes is not that they're robots like some people think objections to them are. My objections are that they are liberally applied murder devices that governments use far more than actual military strikes and that they have a history of collateral damage as well as PR disasters—making terrorist recruitment worse.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#273891: Mar 9th 2019 at 8:31:41 AM

One of the Obama admin’s big failures was advertising the drone program as a surgical, zero-cost solution.

Airstrikes cause civilian casualties. It’s almost unavoidable in the environments we fight in, and drones aren’t really any different.

Agreed, they're useful but acting as if they're costless just leads to an inevitable backlash when it turns out they're actually not.

I'm not against drone strikes in general, or criminal surveillance, or intervening in foreign countries when our interests and the humanitarian needs of the people who live there align.

I am, however, against loose strike criteria that unecessarily kill innocent people, warrantless surveillance that collects information on millions of Americans who are not suspected of committing a crime, or leaving people to survive in a war zone we created.

Reasonable.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#273892: Mar 9th 2019 at 8:39:58 AM

liberally applied murder devices that governments use far more than actual military strikes

Strikes with manned aircraft are missiles are like two to three times more common than drone strikes. Even at the height of the drone campaign we were still carrying out almost double the conventional strikes.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 9th 2019 at 8:45:33 AM

They should have sent a poet.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#273893: Mar 9th 2019 at 8:48:29 AM

Yes and they have far more thought put into them.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 9th 2019 at 8:48:49 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#273894: Mar 9th 2019 at 8:49:05 AM

And the idea of drone strikes is a disquieting one. On the one hand, it's the same tactics The Empire tends to use against less well-equipped enemies to suppress them.

Is fine that I like them exactly because that tongue. Yeah, is a tactic to fight weaker enemies with even less casualities, what's bad with that?

Agreed, they're useful but acting as if they're costless just leads to an inevitable backlash when it turns out they're actually not.

Yeah, but I doubt that someone would buy them if you were.honest and said "yeah, we will kill some children by accident but the benefits outweigh the issues".

Edited by KazuyaProta on Mar 9th 2019 at 11:51:18 AM

Watch me destroying my country
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#273895: Mar 9th 2019 at 8:56:46 AM

[up][up] Not really. You think just because there’s a human over the battlefield an air strike is somehow safer? A drone ultimately isn’t really any different from a cruise missile or glide bomb, it can just be used multiple times.

Also, you weren’t talking about planning. You said there were more drone strikes than conventional strikes, which is incorrect.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 9th 2019 at 8:57:39 AM

They should have sent a poet.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#273896: Mar 9th 2019 at 9:44:59 AM

The problem with drone strikes is that they let the CIA do them. That's literally it. When the military does drone strikes, they have to apply the same rules of engagement as they do with any other form of attack. The CIA has different, much looser standards.

Make the CIA play by the same rules — or better yet, don't let them make strikes at all — and the problem largely goes away.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#273897: Mar 9th 2019 at 9:52:11 AM

The numbers just flat out say your position is wrong, archon. For a variety of reasons but the simple fact is that drone strike attacks have disproportionate high casualties and unpopularity in foreign countries.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#273898: Mar 9th 2019 at 9:59:19 AM

GOP lawmaker tried to silence a black senator in a gun law debate. She stood her ground — and won.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2019/03/09/gop-lawmaker-tried-silence-black-senator-gun-law-debate-she-stood-her-ground-won/

Debate on gun legislation reached a crescendo at the Arkansas State Capitol on Wednesday when a senator fervently denounced a bill that would make it easier to use lethal force in the name of self-defense.

The bill, sponsored by three Republican state senators, would remove a clause from the current law that required a “duty to retreat” in self-defense cases. Previous efforts to push similar “stand your ground” laws in the state, under both Democratic and Republican legislatures, have all failed within the past decade, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.

On Wednesday, Sen. Stephanie Flowers (D) spoke up when some members of the state’s Judiciary Committee tried to limit debate time on the issue — delivering an ardent monologue to explain why “stand your ground” laws are dangerous, particularly for people and communities of color.

“I am the only person here of color. I am a mother, too, and I have a son,” Flowers said. “And I care as much for my son as y’all care for yours. But my son doesn’t walk the same path as yours does. So this debate deserves more time.”

Addressing gun rights supporters in the room, Flowers said it was “crazy” to limit debate on such a sensitive issue. The senator again invoked her 27-year-old son, adding she was glad he no longer lives in Arkansas.

“You don’t have to worry about your children. . . . I have to worry about my son, and I worry about other little black boys and girls,” she said. “And people coming into my neighborhood, into my city, saying they have open-carry rights walking down in front of my doggone office in front of the courthouse. That’s a bully!”

Flowers said she was “scared” and “threatened” by the notion, and cited instances in which people had entered the legislature while carrying guns under their coats, adding, “You can see the damn print!”

Before she could continue, Flowers was interrupted by the committee chairman, Sen. Alan Clark (R).

“Senator, you need to stop talking,” he whispered.

“No, I don’t!” Flowers lashed back.

“Yes, you do,” Clark replied.

“No, I don’t,” Flowers said. “What the hell you going to do, shoot me?”

“Senator …” Clark said, in an apparent effort to quiet her.

“Senator s—-. Go to hell. I’m telling you, this deserves more attention.”

Flowers walked out of the committee room before returning to hear other groups speak out against the bill, including the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police and the Arkansas Sheriffs’ Association, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The measure was narrowly defeated in a 4-to-3 vote, with one Republican joining the opposing group.

Video of Flowers’s unrelenting defense was shared widely Friday, drawing praise from those inspired by her fearlessness. Some found the timing of the video to be fitting, as Friday marked International Women’s Day.

The bill’s primary sponsor will attempt to reintroduce the bill Monday to get one more “yes” vote, local NBC affiliate KARK reported.

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#273900: Mar 9th 2019 at 10:04:59 AM

Charles, see Jovian’s post. Drone strikes conducted under military authority are no less or more dangerous to civilians than conventional strikes, drone strikes conducted by the CIA are just as careless as their other strikes. I’ll also point out that it depends greatly on the type of strike as well; Drone strikes have much less collateral in certain types of missions than conventional strikes and vice versa. Airstrike casualties soared above drone strike casualties last year when most of our airstrikes were conducted in densely packed urban areas.

But anyways, you’re moving the goalposts here. Your original statement was that there were more drone strikes being carried out than conventional strikes, not that there were more civilian casualties from drone strikes.

They should have sent a poet.

Total posts: 417,856
Top