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
The President is the one who authorizes all drone strikes. He initiated the no-fly zone on Libya with congressional approval. He ignored the generals' advice when it concerned Osama Bin Laden. He escalated the troop deployment at Afghanistan. I'd say he has plenty of authority as commander in chief.
Hell, just as the president, he can point out how the NDAA bill detains American citizens without trial or due process, and easily say "See what happens in 2014 and beyond if you vote yes on that bill."
Also, he wanted to stay in Iraq
, but their new government pushed us out
.
edited 3rd Jan '13 11:10:33 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.The thing with Osama Bin Laden turned out to be the right thing to do, and I doubt he ignored his general's advice. Listening to someone doesn't always mean you do what they want. The drone strikes keep American soldiers safe, which is part of the point of having a remote controlled drone in the first place. I fail to see how a no fly zone over Libya is a bad thing, and as you said he had Congressional approval for that particular decision. And if you bring up the other actions, that was done in conjunction with the UN and was a wise move.
And as for the NDAA, the Republicans can gripe "he's against paying our soldiers who sacrificed for us!" and as much as those of us here would see the obvious hypocrisy, there's many others who would not. The Republicans don't need to have this handed over to them. And again, it's being declared wrong by our own courts for obvious reasons.
Also, Irag is a fucking mess. He also conceded to what they wanted instead of being an ass about it, so I fail to see what the problem is there.
I didn't say that everything he did was wrong. The no-fly zone turned out to be the best possible solution for Libya. Plus, the way Bin Laden was killed was much better than what the generals supposedly had in mind (missile strikes).
However, he did ignore his generals' advice
, but it was on Afghanistan, not Osama Bin Laden. Also, the fact that he left is one thing - the fact that he wanted to stay anyway is what gripes me. The NDAA may be condemned as wrong, but we're hardly doing a thing about it.
The drone strikes keep American soldiers safe at the cost of several hundred children, which we covered before. That, and Afghanis are almost literally backstabbing their American allies over there, and we're not still not leaving just yet, so it's counter-intellectual for you to say that.
edited 3rd Jan '13 11:27:54 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.I was only calling out the Double Standard of Spade's comment about that.
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Double standard my ass, Serocco. If a general doesn't do everything in his power keep his men safe, he's got no worth as a general. Same applies to the president. And the drones don't make things less personal; there's still someone that has to make a call, and I find it insulting to our military that you think they'd make any sort of decision like that lightly. Bad calls are made, obviously, but they're still not made lightly.
![]()
If you fight war with honour first and foremost in your mind, you lose. Pragmatism has its place. <shrugs> Usually, if you want to get anywhere, at the head of the table.
In politics, as well. Realpolitik: not just a trope. Sometimes, I could wish you'd notice that.
edited 4th Jan '13 12:37:33 AM by Euodiachloris
Here is a very interesting piece about the Fiscal Cliff talks.
Apparently if it hadn't been for Mc Connell and Biden we would have gone off the cliff.
Here are some of the best parts of the article:
“Go fuck yourself,” he said, pointing a finger at Reid, according to both Democratic and Republican aides who were there.
“Excuse me?” Reid responded.
Boehner repeated himself. Reid just stared.
The meeting went ahead. Democrats talked tax rates and trade-offs with Mc Connell. But Boehner refused to engage, sitting stone-faced on a deep couch.
Aides said Reid actually tore up the proposal and threw it into the blazing fire in his ornate green marble fireplace. The paper burned. Reid said he didn’t want evidence that the idea had ever been considered.
As the two men talked, they began to kill off the grandest ambitions that both parties had brought into the fiscal-cliff debate. Obama, for instance, had said since 2007 that taxes should go up on people making more than $250,000.
That was gone, now. Biden and Mc Connell agreed on $400,000, and $450,000 for couples filing jointly.
The men talked about two other key demands the White House had made. One was that the huge budget cuts called the “sequester” would be delayed to avoid hurting the fledgling economic recovery. Obama had also insisted that any cliff deal raise the national debt ceiling. He did not want a repeat of the crisis that nearly pitched the country into default in the summer of 2011.
Gone, and gone. When Reid got news Monday morning that the terms called for a delay of mere months for the sequester, he called the president. What are you going to do in two months, Reid asked Obama, when the sequester is about kick in along with a new deadline on the federal debt limit?
edited 4th Jan '13 12:42:23 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Short answer: More or less what Serocco said.
Long answer: THIS
Most mandatory spending is exempt from the sequester, including: Social Security, retirement programs, veteran’s benefits, refundable tax credits, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), unemployment insurance, food stamps (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and a host of other programs (mostly those benefitting individuals with low incomes). • Medicare is subject to the sequester in the form of provider payment cuts, but those cuts cannot exceed 2 percent.
Well, those are protected, which are things Serocco constantly says are going to be axed. (Copypastad from Deviant's article.)
Damn, how do I put things in quote blocks?
edited 4th Jan '13 1:00:27 AM by AceofSpades
In the debates, Obama said that the sequester would not happen under his watch.
To his credit, it hasn't.
If Social Security won't be cut, how do you
explain
this?
edited 4th Jan '13 1:05:34 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Okay, I think I get it.
The Payroll Tax Cut created a 2 percent tax break in the payroll tax that funds Social Security and because it was allowed to expire at the end of the year, payroll tax rates will increase from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent.
However its not cutting anything from Social Security, just changing how the program is funded.
edited 4th Jan '13 1:39:07 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016When they say mandatory spending, I think it's safe to assume that they have to fund it regardless of where the funds come from. And wasn't the chained CPI thing abandoned? (I'm not even sure what that is, but everyone in charge seemed to think it was an untenable idea.)
Holy shit I am up way too late. ><
edited 4th Jan '13 1:43:19 AM by AceofSpades
BTW This is the same guy who recently said,“Our opportunity here is on the debt ceiling. The president’s made it very clear – he doesn’t even want to have a discussion about it because he knows this is where we have leverage. We Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a temporary partial government shutdown, which is what that could mean, and insist that we get off the road to Greece because that’s the road we’re on now.”
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Neither. It's those drone pilots and the Armchair Military leaders who don't care if those kids or other innocents get caught in the crossfire (as that report previously linked to by Serocco sadly demonstrates), even when they should know better by virtue of living in a truly civilized, socially and economically stable country.
edited 4th Jan '13 3:29:45 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

The president doesn't have near as much power as we've been taught to think he does. You seem to ascribe to him near mythical level of powers, but I bet if you were president you wouldn't even be able to do half of what you want. Not even half of half.
And yes, I do believe that Obama cares about the common soldier. It would be part of why he's trying to bring them home, and increase their education and job opportunities.
Your basic rhetoric is verging ever close to Black and White Insanity. And while I don't usually like comparing people to tropes, you're illustrating pretty well why that sort of outlook on life doesn't actually work.